Field Testing the Modified Microscopic Particulate Analysis Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The Consensus method for the Microscopic Particulate Analysis is improved by combining it with Method 1623 for Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Laboratory trials reported previously indicate that significant improvements in the recovery of parasite stages and aquatic organisms can be achieved from the filtration of much smaller volumes of water. The protocol devised for sampling and analysis of well water samples was tested by taking samples ten weeks apart at eight well sites servicing Meadow Lake Provincial Park in central Saskatchewan . Some of these water supplies are solar powered and all of them pump raw water only intermittently to cisterns making sampling difficult with the Consensus method. Field sampling time was reduced to one hour per site as opposed to eight hours or more with the old method. Surface water organisms were recovered at all sites along with large numbers of pollen despite a high degree of flocculated iron in the background. MPA analyses were supplemented with measurements of Aerobic Bacteria Spore Formers and presence/absence coliform assays, both of which indicated excellent raw water quality. Risk levels were assessed as medium to low for all sites using the criteria for the Consensus method and as low when evaluated by a risk standard modified to account for the increased sensitivity of the new protocol.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".