MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262229766 · doi:10.2166/wh.2015.034

Assessing protozoan risks for surface drinking water supplies in Nova Scotia, Canada

2015· article· en· W2262229766 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wendy H Krkošek, Victoria Reed, Graham A. Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaEnvironmental scienceNova (rocket)OceanographyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protozoa, such as Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia, pose a human health risk when present in drinking water. To minimize health risks, the Nova Scotia Treatment Standards for surface water and groundwater under the direct influence of surface water require a 3-log reduction for Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts. This study determined the protozoan risk of municipal surface source waters in Nova Scotia, through the use of a pre-screening risk analysis of water supplies, followed by subsequent water quality analysis of the seven highest risk supplies. The water supplies were monitored monthly for 1 year to obtain baseline data that could be used for a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). The QMRA model outcomes were compared to the Health Canada health target of 10(-6) disability-adjusted life years/person/year. QMRA modeling shows that the treatment facilities meet the required log reductions and disability-adjusted life year target standards under current conditions. Furthermore, based on the results of this work, Nova Scotia should maintain the current 3-log reduction standard for Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts. The results of this study show that a pre-screening step can help to inform water sources that are particularly vulnerable to protozoan contamination, which can lead to more focused, cost-effective sampling, and monitoring programs.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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