Assessment of microbiological quality of drinking water from household tanks in Bermuda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bermuda residents collect rainwater from rooftops to fulfil their freshwater needs. The objective of this study was to assess the microbiological quality of drinking water in household tanks throughout Bermuda. The tanks surveyed were selected randomly from the electoral register. Governmental officers visited the selected household (n = 102) to collect water samples and administer a short questionnaire about the tank characteristics, the residents' habits in terms of water use, and general information on the water collecting system and its maintenance. At the same time, water samples were collected for analysis and total coliforms and Escherichia coli were determined by 2 methods (membrane filtration and culture on chromogenic media, Colilert kit). Results from the 2 methods were highly correlated and showed that approximately 90% of the samples analysed were contaminated with total coliforms in concentrations exceeding 10 CFU/100 mL, and approximately 66% of samples showed contamination with E. coli. Tank cleaning in the year prior to sampling seems to protect against water contamination. If rainwater collection from roofs is the most efficient mean for providing freshwater to Bermudians, it must not be considered a source of high quality drinking water because of the high levels of microbial contamination.
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) | 0.001 | 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".