MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995569714 · doi:10.2166/wh.2013.192

Microbial source tracking and spatial analysis of E. coli contaminated private well waters in southeastern Ontario

2013· article· en· W1995569714 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julia Krolik, Gerald A. Evans, Paul Bélanger, Allison Maier, Geoffrey Hall, Alan Joyce, Stephanie Guimont, Amanda Pelot, Anna Majury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreKingston General HospitalPublic Health OntarioQueen's University
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsContaminationContext (archaeology)Fecal coliformSource trackingWaterborne diseasesFecesEnvironmental healthBiologyEcologyWater qualityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Private water supplies, which are the primary source of drinking water for rural communities in developed countries, are at risk of becoming fecally contaminated. It is important to identify the source of contamination in order to better understand and address this human health risk. Microbial source tracking methods using human, bovine and general Bacteroidales markers were performed on 716 well water samples from southeastern Ontario, which had previously tested positive for Escherichia coli. The results were then geospatially analyzed in order to elucidate contamination patterns. Markers for human feces were found in nearly half (49%) of all samples tested, and a statistically significant spatial cluster was observed. A quarter of the samples tested positive for only general Bacteroidales markers (25.7%) and relatively few bovine specific marker positives (12.6%) were found. These findings are fundamental to the understanding of pathogen dynamics and risk in the context of drinking well water and will inform future research regarding host-specific pathogens in private well water 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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207