MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886991718 · doi:10.1128/aem.01634-18

Microbial Source Tracking Using Quantitative and Digital PCR To Identify Sources of Fecal Contamination in Stormwater, River Water, and Beach Water in a Great Lakes Area of Concern

2018· article· en· W2886991718 on OpenAlexafffund
Zachery R. Staley, Rachel J. Boyd, Phoenix Shum, Thomas A. Edge

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Environmental Microbiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsContaminationFecal coliformStormwaterSource trackingIndicator bacteriaEnvironmental scienceWatershedDigital polymerase chain reactionOutfallWater qualitySewageFecesEstuaryHydrology (agriculture)BiologyEcologySurface runoffEnvironmental engineeringPolymerase chain reactionGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fecal contamination of recreational water poses a persistent and ongoing problem, particularly in areas of concern around the Great Lakes. The identification of the source(s) of fecal contamination is essential for safeguarding public health as well as guiding remediation efforts; however, fecal contamination may frequently be present at low levels and remain undetectable by certain methodologies. In this study, we utilized microbial source tracking techniques using both quantitative and digital PCR assays to identify sources of contamination. Our results indicated high levels of human fecal contamination within stormwater outfalls, while lower levels were observed throughout the watershed. Additionally, high levels of gull fecal contamination were detected at Rouge Beach, particularly during drier sampling events. Furthermore, our results indicated an increased sensitivity of the digital PCR assay to detect both human and gull contamination, suggesting it could be a viable tool for future microbial source tracking studies.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Environmental MicrobiologySame topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207