MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407603492 · doi:10.21608/ejabf.2025.411327

Temporary Assessment of the Quality of Tigris River Water During the Wet Season in Central Iraq Using the CCME WQI and Irrigation Indices

2025· article· en· W4407603492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iman Mahdi

Bibliographic record

VenueEgyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Water qualityWater resource managementAgronomyBiologyGeologyEcologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iraq experienced varying climate changes from 2022-2023, with a rise in summer temperatures, moderate winter temperatures, and a decrease in rainfall compared to the previous years. Therefore, this study focused on assessing the water quality of the Tigris River in selected districts during the wet season for drinking and irrigation purposes. Monthly samples from the Tigris River were collected (December, January and February 2022-2023) and 13 physiochemical parameters were thoroughly examined. A few physiochemical parameters in the Tigris water exceeded the World Health Organization's (WHO) permissible levels in the samples, which were in December, 9.05 and 10.7mg/ L for turbidity (Tur) in Shirqat and Alam, and 349mg/ L for sodium (Na) in Alam. In January, the value of 252 and 256mg/L were recorded for total hardness (TH) in Hawija and Alam. In February, a value of was recorded 11.1 for Tur in Alam, while 136, 146, and 140 mg/L were recorded for total alkaline (Alk) in Shirqat, Hawija, and Alam. The Canadian Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) rated the Tigris River water as Good, indicating acceptable water quality for human use. Likewise, the study assessed the suitability of Tigris water for crop irrigation using various irrigation indices, revealing that it was suitable for soil and crops in the studied areas during the wet period.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEgyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and FisheriesSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207