Overview of results from the WaterTox intercalibration and environmental testing phase II program: Part 1, statistical analysis of blind sample testing
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
There is an urgent need to evaluate the presence of toxicants in waters used for human consumption and to develop strategies to reduce and prevent their contamination. The International Development Research Centre undertook an intercalibration project to develop and validate a battery of bioassays for toxicity testing of water samples. The project was carried out in two phases by research institutions from eight countries that formed the WaterTox network. Results for the first phase were reported in the special September 2000 issue of Environmental Toxicology. Phase II involved toxicity screening tests of environmental and blind samples (chemical solutions of unknown composition to participating laboratories) using the following battery: Daphnia magna, Hydra attenuata, seed root inhibition with Lactuca sativa, and Selenastrum capricornutum. This battery was also used to assess potential toxicity in concentrated (10x) water samples. Results are presented for a set of six blind samples sent to the participating laboratories over a 1-year period. Analyses were performed for each bioassay to evaluate variations among laboratories of responses to negative controls, violations of test quality control criteria, false positive responses induced by sample concentration, and variability within and between labs of responses to toxic samples. Analyses of the data from all bioassays and labs provided comparisons of false positive rates (based on blind negative samples), test sensitivities to a metal or organic toxicant, and interlaboratory test variability. Results indicate that the battery was reliable in detecting toxicity when present. However, some false positives were identified with a concentrated soft-water sample and with the Lactuca and Hydra (sublethal end-point) tests. Probabilities of detecting false positives for individual and combined toxic responses of the four bioassays are presented. Overall, interlaboratory comparisons indicate a good reliability of the battery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it