MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066964844 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.1646

A research note: the potential for transfer of <i>Salmonella</i> from irrigation water to tomatoes

2004· article· en· W2066964844 on OpenAlexaff
Julietta Jablasone, Lubov Brovko, Mansel W. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmonellaBiologyHorticultureAgarContaminationIrrigationSalmonella enteritidisAgronomyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The transmission of Salmonella Enteritidis from soil to fruit by contaminated irrigated water was studied using 20 patio tomato plants. In order to track the presence of Salmonella in the soil and plants a luminescent strain transformed with the full luxCDABE gene cassette from Photorhabdus luminescens was used. The tomato plants were irrigated every other day by direct application of water containing Salmonella Enteritidis (105 CFU ml−1) to the soil. Samples of soil, stem, leaf and fruit were taken weekly and assayed for Salmonella by plating onto Luria Bertani agar containing 50 µg ml−1 ampicillin. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in Salmonella counts from soils sampled during the course of the study. No Salmonella were recovered from the leaf, stem, and fruit samples taken from the tomato plants. This indicates that, under these test conditions, watering with contaminated water directly into the soil does not result in the transmission of Salmonella, and possibly other pathogens, to tomatoes. Copyright © 2004 Society of Chemical Industry

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyFrench-language works237,207