Composition of the bacterial biota in slime developed in two machines at a Canadian paper mill
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
During the process of papermaking by pulp and paper plants, a thick and viscous deposits, termed slime, is quickly formed around the paper machines, which can affect the papermaking process. In this study, we explored the composition of the bacterial biota in slime that developed on shower pipes from 2 machines at a Canadian paper mill. Firstly, the composition was assessed for 12 months by DNA profiling with polymerase chain reaction coupled with denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Except for short periods (2-3 months), clustered analyses showed that the bacterial composition of the slime varied substantially over the year, with less than 50% similarity between the denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles. Secondly, the screening of 16S rRNA gene libraries derived from 2 slime samples showed that the most abundant bacteria were related to 6 lineages, including Chloroflexi, candidate division OP10, Clostridiales, Bacillales, Burkholderiales, and the genus Deinococcus. Finally, the proportion of 8 bacterial lineages, such as Deinococcus sp., Meiothermus sp., and Chloroflexi, was determined by the Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in 2 slime samples. The results showed a high proportion of Chloroflexi, Tepidimonas spp., and Schlegelella spp. in the slime samples.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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