MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974043978 · doi:10.1139/s04-061

Waterborne disease: an old foe re-emerging?

2005· article· en· W1974043978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norman F. Neumann, Daniel W. Smith, Miodrag Belosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterborne diseasesCryptosporidiumCryptosporidium parvumEnvironmental healthDiseasePublic healthOutbreakTransmission (telecommunications)Diarrhoeal diseaseBiologyEcologyDiarrheaMedicineMicrobiologyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In developed countries, clean and safe drinking water is taken for granted, and water treatment processes used to mass-produce drinking water have been hailed as one of the top five engineering achievements of the 20th century. However, in the last decade, several waterborne disease outbreaks have made us painfully aware of the personal, economical, societal, and public health costs associated with the impact of waterborne disease. There is evidence to suggest that the prevalence of waterborne disease may be dramatically underestimated in developed countries and that routine endemic exposure to waterborne pathogens may occur more frequently than originally perceived. A variety of demographical, societal, environmental, and physiological emergence factors likely play critical roles in enhancing the frequency of transmission of pathogens to hosts. This review focuses on the scope and impact of waterborne disease in developed countries and identifies issues surrounding the potential for rapid global emergence or re-emergence of waterborne disease. We examine relevant literature on Cryptosporidium parvum and Escherichia coli O157 as model organisms of study that support these concepts. Key words: drinking water, treatment, public health, Cryptosporidium, Escherichia coli, emergence, pathogens, transmission, waterborne disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207