MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physicochemical parameters of groundwater in coastal sandy aquifer

2022· dataset· en· W4394368423 on OpenAlexaff
Zhenyan Wang, Qianqian Wang, Xuejing Wang, Yifan Guo, Yan Zhang, Kai Xiao, Shengchao Yu, Xiaolang Zhang, Chunmiao Zheng, Hailong Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Data Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Yangjiang profile, a total of 29 (27 groundwater samples and 2 surface water samples: seawater and aquaculture wastewater) and 32 (29 groundwater samples and 2 surface water samples: seawater and aquaculture wastewater) samples were collected on August 12, 2020 (wet season) and November 8, 2020 (dry season), respectively. The measurement procedures for the trace metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Zn) in groundwater samples were described elsewhere (Luo et al., 2021). In brief, the samples with high salinity (>1) were first diluted and then analyzed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) (Agilent 7900 Series, USA). The detection limits (μg/L) of trace metals were 0.12, 0.20, 0.05, 0.11, 0.82, 0.12, 0.09, and 0.67 for As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Zn, respectively. A mixed standard solution and two standard reference materials were used to construct the calibration curve and control the analytical quality, respectively. The recoveries of the standard reference materials were 105.4%, 101.7%, 102.6%, 104.0%, and 103.4% for As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Zn, respectively, indicating that the measured results were within the range of the certified values (Luo et al., 2021). Reagent blanks were determined for each sample analysis and trace metals were undetectable therein.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAdvanced Data Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207