HISTORICAL AND CURRENT STATUS OF SPRINGS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was conducted to update previous studies of the springs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Approach: Revisit every spring that was recorded previously to ascertain the current status, water quality and zooplankton communities. Results: fourteen springs out of forty six were still flowing. Several springs in the Eastern Province were structurally changed into manmade pools. Also, one new spring was located and documented in the northwestern region. Zinc and copper in several springs were the common dissolved heavy metals and have had exceeded the safe drinking water standards according to World Health Organization. Fourteen zooplankton taxa was found, seven belonged to phylum Rotifera (four Lecane spp. and three brachionids). Six belonged to subclasses Phyllopoda and Copepoda. The phyllopod, Pleuroxus sp., belongs to suborder Cladocera. The remaining five were copepods: one in the order Cyclopoida (Halicyclops sp.) and four in the order Harpacticoida (Bryocamptus sp., Schizopera sp., Euterpina sp. and Metis sp.). The remaining taxon was an unidentified species belonging to class Ostracoda. Zooplankton species were present in nine of the fifteen springs; the exceptions were Umm Al-Eyal, Abu-Dhuba and the four geothermal springs. Conclusion/ recommendation: The research concluded that the majority of the springs in the Kingdom have fallen dry between 1990 and 2013. Total dissolved solids as well as electrical conductivity, during the same period, were not significantly different. Zooplankton abundance displayed a positive correlation to Electrical Conductivity. Spring water is an important source of freshwater in the Kingdom; as such, springs must be properly maintained and conserved. More attention should be given to protect this important commodity from becoming obsolete. Groundwater protection is everyone's responsibility
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".