MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162958245 · doi:10.2166/wst.2001.0719

Occurrence of Legionella in groundwater: an ecological study

2001· article· en· W2162958245 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegionellaGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceBlackwaterImmunomagnetic separationEnvironmental engineeringBiologyMicrobiologyBacteriaGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The natural habitat of Legionella is the water environment. Little is known about their presence in groundwater in spite of the fact that many millions around the globe regularly rely on groundwaters. This pilot study was aimed at evaluating the occurrence of Legionella in groundwater samples (water and biofilms) collected from various sites. Water and biofilm samples from selected groundwater sources were examined for Legionella using culture media (selective and non-selective) and a semi-nested PCR assay. Innovative approaches such as immunomagnetic separation (IMS) in combination with cultivation and flow cytometry were also evaluated. The findings available thus far show that (a) Legionella could be readily recovered from groundwater samples by cultivation even though their numbers showed considerable variations, (b) surprisingly, the PCR methodology was not yet as sensitive as cultivation and (c) flow cytometry was not directly applicable on natural samples because of debris and the high number of heterotrophic associated microflora from which some members were likely to cross-react with the monoclonal antibody used for separation procedures (IMS).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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