MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074312020 · doi:10.1139/w01-070

Detection of<i>Aeromonas hydrophila</i>in a drinking- water distribution system: a field and pilot study

2001· article· en· W2074312020 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Chauret, Christian Völk, Robin Creason, John Jarosh, Jeff Robinson, Carl E. Warnes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeromonas hydrophilaAeromonasDisinfectantBiofilmEffluentWater treatmentMicrobiologyWater sourceBiologyContaminationVeterinary medicineBacteriaEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceChemistryEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 16-month study was conducted on the presence of Aeromonas hydrophila in drinking water in Indiana, U.S.A. Enumeration was conducted in source water, in various sites within a water treatment plant, and in the distribution system in both bulk water and biofilm, as well as in a simulated (annular reactors) drinking-water distribution system. Presumptive Aeromonas spp. counts on source waters regularly approached 10(3)-10(4) CFU/100 mL, during summer months and granular activated carbon - filtered water counts ranged from <1 to 490 CFU/100 mL. In source water, presumptive Aeromonas levels were related to water temperature. Aeromonas hydrophila was never detected in the treatment plant effluent or distributed bulk water, showing disinfectant efficiency on suspended bacteria; however, isolates of A. hydrophila were identified in 7.7% of the biofilm samples, indicating a potential for regrowth and contamination of drinking-water distribution systems.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations85
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207