Evaluation of Groundwater Using The Water Quality Index (WQI) In Hawija Area, Kirkuk, Northern Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The water quality index (WQI) has been used to comprehend the Hawija region's groundwater quality for drinking purposes. Where Some locals solely utilize groundwater for drinking purposes. Forty groundwater samples were collected from the Hawija region's bore wells. The groundwater was somewhat hard and slightly alkaline. These materials were transported to (Acme Lab) to Canada for examination. In addition to comparing the findings of the current study with Iraqi requirements, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classification of water quality and its suitability for various uses, this paper also examines physical properties such as pH, electrical conductivity, temperature, dissolved salts, and chemical properties, including estimating the water content of major ions. In the low-flow season, the WQI values varied from 29.96 to 112.5, whereas in the high-flow season, they ranged from (25.61 to 142.32). Out of 40 groundwater samples, 12 (30%) were deemed to have excellent water quality, 17 (42.5%) were deemed to have bad water quality, 10 (25%) were deemed to have extremely poor water quality, and 1 (2.5%) were deemed unfit for drinking during the low flow season. Groundwater samples taken during the high flow season had a water quality rating of 16 (40%) good, 14 (35%) bad, 7 (17.5%) extremely poor, and 3 (7.5%) unfit for drinking. This suggests that much of the research area's groundwater samples are unsuitable for human consumption.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".