MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524937514 · doi:10.2166/wh.2016.024

Microbial source tracking of private well water samples across at-risk regions in southern Ontario and analysis of traditional fecal indicator bacteria assays including culture and qPCR

2016· article· en· W2524937514 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julia Krolik, Allison Maier, Shawna Thompson, Anna Majury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContaminationSource trackingFecal coliformFecesBiologyVeterinary medicineIndicator bacteriaEscherichia coliLivestockMicrobiologyEnvironmental scienceWater qualityEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many people living in rural areas rely on privately owned wells as their primary source of drinking water. These water sources are at risk for fecal contamination of human, wildlife, and livestock origin. While traditional bacteriological testing involves culture-based methods, microbial source tracking (MST) assays present an opportunity to additionally determine the source of fecal contamination. This study investigated the main host sources of contamination in private well water samples with high levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli), using MST with human and multi-species specific markers. Fecal contamination of human origin was detected in approximately 50% of samples, indicating that current contamination prevention strategies require reconsideration. The relationship between cattle density and fecal contamination of bovine origin was investigated using a Bovine Bacteroidales specific MST assay. Regional variations of microbial sources were examined, and may inform local primary prevention strategies. Additionally, in order to assess MST and E. coli quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays as indicators of fecal contamination, these were compared to E. coli culture methods. Variation in results was observed across all assay methods investigated, suggesting the most appropriate routine bacteriological testing methodology cannot be determined without comparison to a method that directly detects the presence of fecal contamination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207