Ground Water Quality Assessment in Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In present study the ground water qualityof Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand was assessed and compared with the national and international standards.The groundwater quality waschecked by Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI).This index assesses the suitability of groundwater quality for drinking in the eight sampling stations located at Kashipur, Pant Nagar, and Kichha of Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand.The indexfor summer (April) season for 2019 and 2020 was computed by using the secondary data related to groundwater collected from the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board.The water quality index (WQI) has computed using the value of temperature, electrical conductivity, hardness, magnesium,and alkalinity.It isconcluded based on CCME WQI that no sampling station comes under the category of excellent during last two years.WQI values shows that water quality improved in 2020in comparison to 2019, as the values in 2019 are56.78,65.28, 56.21, 55.78, 47.50, 49.29, 56.16, 55.89 whereas in 2020 the values are 66.19, 74.30, 66.08, 59.57, 51.51, 66.68, 66.11, 73.53.The index improved in 2020 year because lockdown had led to partial or complete ban on the industrial activities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".