Evaluating the Water Quality of the Keddara Dam (Algeria) Using Water Quality Indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dams are regarded as crucial pieces of structure that store water for irrigation and municipal uses. Given their vital role, the dam’s water quality assessment is considered to be an important criterion and requires constant monitoring. In this research, we attempted to use two water quality indices (WQIs) methods to assess the water quality of the Keddara Dam, which is located on the Boudouaou River, Algeria, using eleven water quality parameters (temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), full alkalimetric title (TAC), hydrometric title (TH), nitrite ions (NO2−), nitrate ions (NO3−), ammonium ions (NH4+), and phosphate ions (PO43−)) for data recorded from 29 December 2018 to 3 June 2021. Application of The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) WQIs and the Weighted Arithmetic Method (WAM) indicated that the Keddara Dam’s water quality parameters were within the WHO’s permissible level, except for the conductivity and turbidity values. The results of the CCME WQI ranged from acceptable (81.92) to excellent (95.08) quality, whereas the WAM WQI ranged from 9.52 to 17.77, indicating excellent quality. This demonstrates that the Keddara Dam is appropriate for agriculture and municipal use. The water quality indices (WQIs) methods are recommended as valuable tools that allow both the public and decision-makers to comprehend and manage the water quality of any aquatic environment by providing flexibility in choosing variables.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".