Application of Monitoring Data for<i>Giardia</i> and<i>Cryptosporidium</i> to Boil Water Advisories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the problems associated with analyzing water samples for Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts, the data can be very useful if their strengths and weaknesses are understood. Two municipalities in northern Ontario, Temagami and Thunder Bay, both issued boil water advisories for Giardia contamination. Data from these two cities are compared to show that only one municipality experienced a real outbreak, whereas the other did not. The concentration of Giardia cysts was much higher than background during the outbreak at Temagami, and the postoutbreak concentrations of cysts were very similar to the long-term average cyst concentration at Thunder Bay. The waterborne outbreak of giardiasis at Temagami was characterized by consistent positive results from water samples, concentrations two to three orders of magnitude higher than normal, and an obvious increase in the number of cases of giardiasis in the population. No outbreak was experienced at Thunder Bay, but a boil water advisory (BWA) was set in place for more than a year on the basis of a single sample from Loch Lomond in which only two cysts were detected but the sample equivalent volume was low. This gave the impression of a sudden increase in concentration, but 39 of 41 subsequent samples were negative. Additional factors that led to a BWA at Thunder Bay are described, and recommendations are presented to help determine when a BWA is necessary and when it should be rescinded.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".