MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391509306 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1s.2167

Study Of Extent of Global Uranium Contamination in Groundwater

2023· article· en· W4391509306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Madhusmita Padhi, Moumita Mukherjee, Sibashish Baksi, Pritha Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUraniumContaminationGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceGroundwater contaminationWater resource managementEnvironmental chemistryGeologyChemistryAquiferMaterials scienceBiologyMetallurgyGeotechnical engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uranium exposure can result in health risks in both natural and anthropogenic contexts, due to its chemotoxicity and radiotoxicity. The former is anticipated to play a larger role in natural uranium exposure, whilst the latter is more significant in enriched uranium exposure. The largest consumer of groundwater worldwide is India. India is responsible for 85% of the world's freshwater supply and 60% of irrigated agriculture. Uranium is absorbed into the body through contaminated food or uranium-affected water, offering a health danger to humans who may be exposed to high quantities of uranium through their drinking water. The health effects of uranium exposure include leukaemia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, kidney cancer, and bladder cancer. Evidence also suggests that drinking water contaminated with uranium might result in chronic renal disease, bone malformations, and liver damage. Uranium in drinking water must not exceed a WHO standard of 30 g/L. Uranium pollution is highest in China, the United States, Germany, Spain, Korea, Myanmar, Mongolia, Burundi, and other nations worldwide. In 151 districts across 18 states in India, high quantities of uranium have been found in ground water. This review focuses on impact of this metal contamination worldwide.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.016 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207