MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391176515 · doi:10.4236/jwarp.2024.161005

Lead, Zinc and Iron Pollutants Load Assessment in Selected Rivers in Southern Nigeria: Implications for Domestic Uses

2024· article· en· W4391176515 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resource and Protection · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutantZincEnvironmental scienceLead (geology)Environmental chemistryLead exposureEnvironmental engineeringWater resource managementChemistryGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study is to comparatively assess the concentrations of lead, zinc and iron in Rivers Ase, Warri and Ethiope, in Nigeria. Monthly water samples were collected from six randomly selected sites along the rivers course. 72 water samples were collected from each river at 0 - 15 cm depths. Samples were analysed based on the standard methods recommended by the WHO for testing lead, zinc and iron. The assessment of the water quality was done using the Water Quality Index (WQI) of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME-WQI). While hypotheses were tested using ANOVA. Findings indicated that CCME-WQI values were 47.3, 66.52 and 78.7. This meant that the water quality of River Ase is impaired and departed from desirable levels, while that of Warri and Ethiope were considered to occasionally be impaired and depart from desirable levels. The ANOVA model showed that there is a significant variation in heavy metal load in the selected rivers at P < 0.05. River water was put to domestic uses such as drinking (20.5%) preparing food (17.8%), bathing (19.8%), washing clothes and dishes (21.3%), brushing teeth (13.3%), and catering for domestic animals (7.5%). Poverty (49.5%) was the major reason for the use of river water for domestic purposes. The locals highlighted that they usually suffer from cholera (26.8%), diarrhoea (25.8%), dysentery (24%) and typhoid (23.5%) as a result of using the river water. The study recommended routine monitoring of anthropogenic and geologic activities, testing of the water regularly amongst others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it