Evaluation of Bacterial & Fungal Culture Practices in School Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] A wide range of activities may be undertaken in elementary and secondary school science laboratories as part of regular curricular activities or optional classroom activities, including science fair projects. Among these is the culturing of microorganisms such as bacteria or fungi. There are various potential educational opportunities associated with these activities, however there are, as well, inherent biosafety concerns associated with culturing of certain materials or microorganisms. In diagnostic and research laboratories, strict biosafety protocols are mandated to reduce the risk of laboratory-associated infections. Currently, the author is unaware of any objective information regarding culture practices used in school classrooms and whether there are any potential health and safety risks that are not being adequately addressed. Further, specific guidelines for bacterial or fungal culture in school laboratories appear to be either superficial or lacking, and are not based on evidence regarding current practices. The objective of this study was to characterize bacterial and fungal culture practices in classrooms in schools. * Materials & Methods A survey regarding culture practices in classrooms was developed and tested with a small group of science teachers. The refined version was administered as an online survey. An invitation to participate was sent by e-mail to members of the Science Teachers Association of Ontario/L'Association des Professeurs des Sciences de l'Ontario (STAO/APSO). Membership in STAO/APSO is voluntary and consists of approximately 2,000 teachers, primarily from Ontario, Canada. All members whose e-mail addresses were on file with STAO/APSO were eligible to participate. A reminder was sent approximately two weeks later as part of a STAO/APSO newsletter. The survey was anonymous and confidential. Teachers were queried about their demographic information, education, teaching experience, and whether students had per formed bacterial or fungal culture in their classroom during the preceding five years. For teachers who responded affirmatively, the following areas were further evaluated: location where culture was performed, types of materials cultured, substrates used to grow cultures, whether any students were restricted from Coming into contact with culture materials, biosafety practices, hand hygiene, biosafety training, and desired resources. Descriptive statistics were used. Categorical comparisons were performed using a chi-squared test. This study was approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board. * Results Demographics Ninety-three teachers completed the survey, 19 (20%) elementary school and 74 (80%) secondary school teachers. There was a wide range in teaching experience, but most of the teachers had zero to five years of experience (33% of respondents). Eighty-three (89%) stated that science teaching was their primary teaching responsibility, while for the remaining ten (11%), science teaching was only a minor component. Sixty-seven (72%) had a B.Sc. in a science-related field, while 18 (19%) had completed an M.Sc. or Ph.D. in a science-related field. Seven (7.5%) had taken some science courses at the university or college level while one (1.1%) had no formal science education. Incidence & Associations Fifty-nine (63%) respondents reported that students in their classroom performed bacterial or fungal culture over the preceding five years. This was significantly more common among secondary (54/74, 73%) versus elementary teachers (5/19, 26%)(P=0.0002). There was no association between the number of years of teaching experience or the teacher's formal scientific education and whether culture was performed (P=0.58 and 0,36, respectively). Culture was performed as part of a mandatory classroom activity in 53 (90%) of the cases, while as part of a science fair in four (6. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".