MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402956445 · doi:10.18280/mmep.110921

Computer Aided Evaluation and Assessment of Aggressiveness or Tendency of Water to Form Alkaline and Sulfate Scales

2024· article· en· W4402956445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osama A. Hamad, Belied S. Kuwairi

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSulfateEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study introduces an interactive software tool developed in Visual Basic for predicting and evaluating the formation of hard scales in water during various operational conditions.Water properties such as pH, alkalinity, CO2 gas pressure, ionic strength, and operating temperature and pressure are required inputs for the software.It provides efficient data storage, water analysis capabilities, and output formatting.Users can input water analysis results and operating conditions using different units, generating multiple interpretable outcomes, including Langelier Saturation Index (LSI), Ryznar Saturation Index (RSI), Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential (CCPP), Stiff and Davis Stability Index (SDI), and Oddo and Tomson Index (OTI).Furthermore, the software predicts the dissolution rates of concrete in aggressive water for prestressed concrete cylinder pipes (PCCP).Real-time data from various sources, including the Great Man River Project (GMRP), Arabian Gulf Oil Company, Melita Oil and Gas Company, and Zueitina Oil Company, validate the software's accuracy and reliability.This software enhances water property management, improves operational efficiency, and lowers maintenance costs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207