Water Quality of Tigris River in Mosul and Al-Amarah Cities by using CCME Water Quality Index
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to assess the water quality index (WQI) according to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's Water Quality Index method (CCME WQI). Four locations (measurement stations) are selected along the Tigris River, in Iraq. Two of them are located in the north near Mosul City, (Mosul Dam and Mosul city), and the other two are located in the south near Al-Amarah city, (Ali Garbi and Al-Amarah). The water data collected is for the period 2011 to 2013, including eleven water quality parameters. These are magnesium (Mg+2), calcium (Ca2+), potassium (K+), sodium (Na+), sulfate (SO42-), chloride (Cl-), nitrate (NO3-), bicarbonate (HCO3-), total dissolved solids (TDS), electric conductivity (EC), and (biochemical oxygen demand BOD5). Results show that the water quality in Mosul city ranged from (83-94) in the two stations, while it has a range of (52-59) in Al-Amarah city for the two sites as well. According to WHO standards, these ranges indicate that the river waterfalls in a good level in Mosul city, while it belongs to the marginal category for Al-Amarah city. This is expected due to the disposal of many pollution sources along the distance from north to south downstream the river, therefore these pollution sources must be controlled.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it