Adequacy of in situ glass slides and direct sand extractions to assess the microbiota within sand columns used for drinking water treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, Cholodny-Rossi buried glass slide techniques have been used to study the microbiota of subsurface environments, yet the bias of such a technique has not been compared against direct sand extraction using modern in situ probing. Over a period of 34 wk, four separate 4-m-deep sand columns receiving raw lake water were examined to compare direct extraction of sand filter biofilm material against in situ glass slide biofilms. Significantly different DAPI direct counts and fluorescent in situ hybridization signals for major phylogenetic groups were observed. Not only were lower proportions (P < 0.001) of EUB338-probed DAPI cells observed on in situ glass slides, but also fewer gamma-Proteobacteria (12%-21%) and more alpha-Proteobacteria (16%-33%) when compared to direct sand extracts. Hence, investigators of the microbial ecology of even simple sand biofilms must consider the inherent biases from "accepted" methods and seek further independent methods to identify those which may be most accurate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".