MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413396122 · doi:10.3390/w17162483

Assessment of the Surface Water Quality of Ibrahim River (Lebanon): A Spatio-Temporal Analysis

2025· article· en· W4413396122 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Chidiac, Paula El Najjar, Amine Kassouf, Naïm Ouaïni, Youssef El Rayess, Désirée El Azzi

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersConseil National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsWater qualitySurface waterEnvironmental scienceQuality (philosophy)Water resource managementHydrology (agriculture)Environmental engineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring surface water quality offers a clear understanding of its parameters over time and space. The Ibrahim River, one of the main rivers in Lebanon, was monitored over one hydrological year, from March 2021 to April 2022. Samples were collected from seven stations in the watershed, once every two weeks. A total of 504 samples were then analyzed for pH, conductivity, turbidity, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved nitrate, dissolved potassium, dissolved chloride, total alkalinity, fecal coliforms, and total coliforms. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was able to highlight two principal components (PCs), representing spatial and temporal variations, identifying areas of pollution and the influence of flow on water quality. The adapted Water Quality Index (WQI) confirmed the PCA trend with an overall average for the entire watershed of 83.70 ± 4.97, indicating a “good” water quality.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207