MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185503386 · doi:10.2166/wh.2003.0011

Indigenous bacterial spores as indicators of Cryptosporidium inactivation using chlorine dioxide

2003· article· en· W2185503386 on OpenAlexaff
S. Verhille, Ron Hofmann, Christian Chauret, Robert C. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptosporidiumChlorine dioxideSporeChlorineWater treatmentEnvironmental scienceBiologyEnvironmental chemistryMicrobiologyChemistryEnvironmental engineeringFeces

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This objective of this study was to explore the practicality of monitoring naturally occurring organisms to predict drinking water treatment plant performance, in this case for the reduction of Cryptosporidium. Surface and ground water from seven drinking water treatment plants across North America that use chlorine dioxide were surveyed for aerobic and anaerobic bacterial spore concentrations. The concentrations of total spores were usually high enough in both raw and treated water to allow 4- to 5-log reductions to be observed across the treatment train by filtering up to 2 l of sample. These results suggested that naturally occurring treatment-resistant spores could be candidates as indicators of treatment performance. However, to be useful as indicators for Cryptosporidium reduction, the organisms would have to exhibit similar resistances to disinfection (chlorine dioxide in this case) in order to be useful. The inactivation kinetics of seven of the most common species were determined, and all were observed to be considerably more susceptible to chlorine dioxide inactivation than Cryptosporidium as reported in the literature. This study therefore did not identify an appropriate ambient microbial indicator for Cryptosporidium control.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207