MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112547359 · doi:10.1139/w09-007

Bifidobacterial survival in surface water and implications for microbial source tracking

2009· article· en· W2112547359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jakob Ottoson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSvenskt Vatten
KeywordsSewageBiologyFecesManureFecal coliformAnimal sciencePollutionVeterinary medicineFood scienceMicrobiologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyWater qualityEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bifidobacteria are common in the intestines of humans and other animals. Sorbitol-fermenting Bifidobacteria (SFB) are associated with human faecal pollution. The ratio of total Bifidobacteria (TB) to SFB has been proposed to be a means for determining the source (human or animal) of faecal pollution. In this study, SFB were detected in all sewage samples (n = 39) and in 42% of samples of animal origin (n = 24): pig (5/6 positive), poultry (4/8), horse (1/4), and cow (0/6). The TB:SFB ratio was significantly higher in animal samples than in sewage samples (p < 0.01), with the exception of stored poultry manure, which had ratios (1.4-11) similar to the sewage samples (1-17). The lowest ratio in the other animal samples was 40 (pig). The TB:SFB ratio in sewage remained stable over time in surface water, and it may be a useful screening tool to determine the source of faecal pollution in surface water. Bifidobacteria died off in a log linear manner at 4 and 22 degrees C, with rates of disappearance of 0.16 and 0.58 log(days-1), respectively. Faecal coliforms (FC) disappeared more slowly (0.09 and 0.43 log(days-1), respectively). The FC:SFB ratio proved to be an inadequate tool for determining the age of sewage pollution.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207