The Results of Investigation into the Actual Circumstances on Water use along Everest Highway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the one in 2004, we continued the examination of water quality along the Everest highway, which is situated in the eastern part of Nepal. This time, sending out questionnaires, we had a hearing on how the inhabitants along the highway feel about the water. We surveyed from Lukla, where there is an airport, to Gorakshep, the highest point where we stayed overnight. More than half of them get drinking water from the tap. On the quality of drinking water, more than half of them think it clean. On the quantity, about half of them thought it not enough, and a third of them, on the other hand, plenty. Concerning the flavor of water, most of them find it good. Majority of them not particularly feel their potable water affected by water pollution, but a quarter of them answered that the rivers and creeks are polluted. When asked which water they see as cleanest, more than half of them say that the tap water they usually take is. All in all, we concluded that on the supply, the quality, the quantity and the flavor of the water, almost all of the inhabibnts are contented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".