MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620233672 · doi:10.11159/icepr17.160

Evaluation on the Drinking Water Quality Concerning Bacteria and Inorganic Nitrogen Using Ten Spring Water Samples

2017· article· en· W2620233672 on OpenAlex
Masayuki Goto, Takehiko Kaneko, Riho Endo, Reiko Takanashi, Hadjime Nakajima, Tadashi Furuhata

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on New Technologies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpring (device)Water qualityNitrogenEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEcologyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water supply self-sufficiency rate in nationwide of Japan is almost 100%. However, spring water is also used as drinking water. In this thesis, we examined bacterial contamination and inorganic nitrogen using ten spring water samples to evaluate their hygienic safety. Those samples were collected from Nov. 26, 2016 to Jan. 27, 2017. EC blue test and desoxycholate agar test were carried out for coliforms and fluorescent EC blue test was used for E. coli . Other general bacteria were detected by standard agar test. Inorganic nitrogen (e.g. NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) were evaluated by using each ion selective pack test and digital pack test meter. As a result, the coliforms were detected in the range of 260 to 1 CFU/mL in five samples by desoxycholate agar tests. The results of EC blue tests in the same samples were also positive. E. coli was positive reaction in two of the five samples. Therefore, these spring water samples were judged inappropriate for drinking. In the rest five samples, there were no E. coli and no coliform. The numbers of general bacteria were detected 2100 to 0 CFU/mL. Three samples, which showed the values of 2100, 400 and 110 CFU/mL respectively, were out of the drinking water quality standard (100 CFU/ mL). The concentrations of NH4-N and NO2-N in each sample were not detected. NO3-N concentrations were the range of 40.8 to 0.27 mg/L in ten samples. Two samples (i.e. 40.8 and 21.1 mg/L) exceeded the standard quality value (NO3-N; <10 mg/L) of drinking water. In conclusion, five of the 10 spring water samples did not meet the quality standard criteria of drinking water by bacteriological examination and evaluation of inorganic nitrogen. We determined those five samples were not suitable for drinking. These methods, tried in this study, were very useful for quickly detecting the hygiene problems of spring water samples.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.199 · 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