Evaluating appropriate maximum holding times for private well water samples
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privately maintained groundwater wells are often located at a great distance from laboratories, creating a barrier to bacteriological testing (a necessity for determining drinking water potability). Extending the acceptable holding time between testing and collection could potentially diminish this barrier. Using seven Escherichia coli strains isolated from private well waters, the acceptability of Ontario's current allowable sample maximum holding time (48 h) was compared with time of collection. Additionally, the acceptability of extending the holding time from 48 h to 72 h was investigated. All analyses were performed using noninferiority statistical approaches to determine if later holding times had no meaningful difference in bacterial growth (determined by colony forming unit enumeration). All strains did not statistically decrease below the acceptable 10% difference during the two time periods. However, variations in the survival rates of isolates were observed, suggesting that a risk management approach should be employed when determining maximum holding times.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 it