Canadian Water Quality Index of Port Harcourt Groundwater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of groundwater in Port Harcourt was investigated in order to understand the status at different points within the city. This was achieved by obtaining water samples from thirty (30) boreholes evenly distributed within the city at a frequency of three months for a period of one year. The water samples were analyzed for turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, electrical conductivity (EC) chloride (Cl), sulphate (SO4), nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO4). Others include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total coliform (TC), iron (Fe), lead (Pb) and manganese (Mn). The laboratory results associated with the various sampled boreholes were subjected to Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) and it was noted that the groundwater quality of the sampled boreholes ranged between 76.73 – 35.60 on the Canadian index. The index values at the non-sampled boreholes were obtained by mapping the groundwater quality of the entire city using Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation technique. The generated map revealed that the quality of groundwater in Port Harcourt deteriorate towards the southern part of the city. Notwithstanding, it was concluded that the groundwater quality within the entire city were either occasionally, frequently or always threatened by anthropogenic and (or) geogenic factors based on the range of the Canadian index values determined.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".