Enterococci as a key parameter for water quality index: Purires River, Costa Rica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".