Evaluating the Impact of Geophysical Variables on the Bacterial Contamination of Private Wells in Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial contamination in groundwater is not often analyzed beyond local and regional scales. The \npresence of bacterial contaminants in the groundwater of southern Ontario has been observed, and \nseveral areas have been identified as being at higher relative risk of E. coli contamination (Krolik et \nal, 2013). This discovery by Public Health Ontario has prompted further research to evaluate \nrelationships between observed levels of bacterial contamination and the geological setting of \nprivate wells. Using approximately 38,000 geocoded wells, statistical analysis was performed to \ncompare overburden depth, soil texture, bedrock classification, and surficial deposit classification \nto observed levels of total coliform bacteria and E. coli. A very weak negative correlation was \nobserved between overburden depth and E. coli, but not total coliform bacteria. One-Way ANOVA \nidentified statistically significant differences among the means of total coliform bacteria counts in \nbedrock and surficial units, but not for E. coli. One-Way ANOVA identified statistically significant \ndifferences among the means of both total coliform bacteria and E. coli in wells situated in soils of \ndifferent texture.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".