Ceramic Water Filters: A Point-of-Use Water Treatment Technology to Remove Bacteria from Drinking Water in Longhai City, Fujian Province, China
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While provision of safe drinking water is considered a basic human right, there are major challenges in the developing world for its provision. The ability to deliver safe water using a cost-appropriate technology is a major aspect of the problem. One of the technologies that has the potential to contribute significantly is the ceramic water filter (CWF); however, as shown herein, there are significant differences between performance of CWFs in the laboratory and in field applications. The CWFs employed in this study (field and laboratory) have a pore fraction of 21.0 - 22.4% and an average maximum pore diameter of 5.7 - 15.2 μm. Field studies were completed in Longhai City, China, a rural community in southeastern China with red earth, high precipitation and intensive human/ domestic activities. During field trials, CWFs demonstrated an average removal efficiency of 94.7%, with values ranging from 75 - 100%, whereas in laboratory studies, average removal efficiency was determined to be 99.5%, with values ranging from 97.7 - 99.9%. Differences between the lab and field removal efficiencies are attributed to contamination of the filter element and receptacle by villagers during field utilization and cleaning. Effective technology transfer to the end-user is required to achieve the bacterial removal efficiency attainable by the technology itself.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it