MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100345991

ASSESSMENT OF THE WATER QUALITY INDEX OF EUPHRATES RIVER BETWEEN HEET AND RAMADI CITIES,

2014· article· en· W7100345991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)Total dissolved solidsFecal coliformBiochemical oxygen demandSulfateIndex (typography)Turbidity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Water Quality Index (WQI) of Euphrates river between Heet and Ramadi cities was carried out using various water quality parameter from November 2008 to June 2009. Twelve water quality parameters namely Ph, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) , Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) , Turbidity, Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) , Total Suspended Solids (TSS) , Bicarbonate (HCO3-) , Sulfate ( SO4 = ), Phosphate (PO4 = ) , Total Nitrogen (TN) , Chloride ( Cl-) and Fecal Coliform (FC) were considered to compute Water Quality Index (WQI) based on the Canadian council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index methodology (CCME WQI). We found that the water quality of Euphrates river in the study area is mostly rated as ״ marginal ״ ( CCME WQI is 45.17) for over all drinking aquatic uses in the study period. Generally, the water quality was ״ marginal ״ at the upstream and ״ poor ״ at the downstream throughout the study period. The deterioration of water quality in Euphrates river can be attributed to natural and anthropogenic sources.

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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProbability and Statistical ResearchFrench-language works237,207