Frogs host faecal bacteria typically associated with humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree frogs commonly access drinking water tanks; this may have human health implications. Although amphibians might not be expected to host mammalian faecal indicator bacteria (FIB), it is possible that they may have human FIB on their skin after exposure to human waste. We collected faeces and skin wash from green tree frogs (Litoria caerulea) from a natural environment, a suburban site, and a suburban site near a creek occasionally contaminated with sewage effluent. We used molecular techniques to test for FIB that are routinely used to indicate human faecal contamination. Enterococci colonies were isolated from both faecal and skin wash samples, and specific markers (Enterococcus faecium and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron) were found in frog faeces, demonstrating that these markers are not human- or mammalian-specific. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron was detected in frogs from both natural and urban sites, but E. faecium was only associated with the sewage impacted site.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".