Evaluación fisicoquímica del agua potable en la Ciudad de Macas - Ecuador durante el segundo trimestre del 2022
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physicochemical evaluation of drinking water is an essential process to guarantee the safety \nand quality of the water supply in any location, including the city of Macas in Ecuador. Drinking \nwater is a vital resource for the health and well-being of the population, so it is crucial to ensure \nthat it meets the established standards. In this way, the present investigation was based on the \nmonthly sampling of the second quarter of the year 2022 of the physicochemical and \nmicrobiological parameters of the drinking water of the city of Macas and compared with the \nINEN 1108:2014 DRINKING WATER standard. REQUIREMENTS, in conclusion, the \nevaluation of the physicochemical parameters of water samples from different locations in Macas \nrevealed variations in the levels of turbidity, pH, temperature and free chlorine. Although some \nsamples were considered fit for human consumption, others exceeded the maximum permissible \nlimits, mainly due to increased precipitation and the consequent transport of particles and \nsubstances. These findings highlight the importance of continuous monitoring and treatment \nprocesses to guarantee the supply of drinking water to the population.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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 it