MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895101251 · doi:10.2166/wh.2018.087

Enterococci as a key parameter for water quality index: Purires River, Costa Rica

2018· article· en· W2895101251 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luz Chacón, Víctor Arias, Kenia Barrantes, Wilson Beita-Sandí, Liliana Reyes, Rosario Achí

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterUniversity of Miami
KeywordsWater qualityFecal coliformEnvironmental scienceBiochemical oxygen demandSampling (signal processing)Hydrology (agriculture)Chemical oxygen demandTotal suspended solidsAgricultureEnvironmental engineeringEcologyWastewaterBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study used the Canadian Water Quality Index (CWI) to characterize water sampled at three points within the Purires River micro basin, Costa Rica. The first sampling point is located in a high zone with domestic agricultural activities, the second point around the mid-point of the flow of the river, and the third point at the lowest zone with extensive agricultural activities mainly centered on the production of fresh vegetables. Eleven physicochemical parameters (As, Cd, Cr, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), NH4+, NO3−, Pb, pH, percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (PSO), and total suspended solids (TSS)) and two microbiological parameters (fecal coliforms and enterococci) were evaluated. We evaluated three different Canadian Water Quality Indexes (CWIs): CWI-1 included only physicochemical parameters, CWI-2 included CWI-1 parameters plus fecal coliforms, and CWI-3 included CWI-2 in addition to enterococci. Statistical analysis of individual parameters showed significant differences between sampling sites. CWI-1 was unable to discriminate between the three sampling points, and characterized the water quality as ‘fair’. CWI-2 was only able to discriminate when the water contained high levels of chemical and microbiological contaminants, while CWI-3 adequately discriminated water quality at each of the sampling points. The evaluation of enterococci together with more traditional water quality parameters enabled better categorization of surface water quality.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207