MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401975816 · doi:10.3390/app14167325

Assessing the Suitability of CCME WQI as a Groundwater Quality Monitoring Tool: An Environmental Ergonomics Case Analysis

2024· article· en· W4401975816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zeba Zarin Ansari, Anton Vorina, Dejan Kojić, Darina Dupláková, Ján Duplák

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGroundwaterEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted with the aim of protecting groundwater, which plays a crucial role in ensuring food quality in the market, preserving public health, and safeguarding the ecosystem, as many regions rely on clean natural groundwater for their population’s survival. The objective of this study was to use the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) for groundwater at 12 stations in the Okhla Industrial Area, Nangloi, and Karol Bagh in the Delhi Region. CCME WQI is an effective tool for assessing groundwater quality and communicating water conditions to various users. The research methodology involved fieldwork from June to October 2020 for three different periods in the year: pre-monsoon, monsoon, and post-monsoon, to observe variations in water quality and differences in various physicochemical properties of water. The CCME WQI was applied using sixteen water quality parameters, fourteen of which were physicochemical parameters and two of which were microbiological parameters. Among the physicochemical parameters were color, odor, pH, turbidity, nitrate, total hardness, iron, chloride, fluoride, total dissolved solids, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and alkalinity, while the microbiological parameters included the total coliform and Escherichia coli counts. Based on the results obtained from the water quality index, station A9 scored between 0 and 44, indicating the lowest water quality index due to wastewater discharges and industrial contamination. The water quality at other stations also requires attention to achieve excellent ratings. The study concludes that serious measures should be taken for proper management of the area to protect the population from hazardous diseases. The research results show that stations 1, 2, and 10 were rated as excellent, station 12 as good, stations 4, 5, and 8 as moderate, stations 3, 6, and 11 as marginal, and station 9 as the poorest in terms of water quality in the year 2020 during the pre-monsoon, monsoon, and post-monsoon periods. To improve the parameters and groundwater quality, it would be necessary to reduce the impact of industry, anthropogenic–geogenic activities, and domestic activities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207