Importance of Distributional Forms for the Assessment of Protozoan Pathogens Concentrations in Drinking‐Water Sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The identification of appropriately conservative statistical distributions is needed to predict microbial peak events in drinking water sources explicitly. In this study, Poisson and mixed Poisson distributions with different upper tail behaviors were used for modeling source water Cryptosporidium and Giardia data from 30 drinking water treatment plants. Small differences (<0.5‐log) were found between the “best” estimates of the mean Cryptosporidium and Giardia concentrations with the Poisson–gamma and Poisson–log‐normal models. However, the upper bound of the 95% credibility interval on the mean Cryptosporidium concentrations of the Poisson–log‐normal model was considerably higher (>0.5‐log) than that of the Poisson–gamma model at four sites. The improper choice of a model may, therefore, mislead the assessment of treatment requirements and health risks associated with the water supply. Discrimination between models using the marginal deviance information criterion (mDIC) was unachievable because differences in upper tail behaviors were not well characterized with available data sets (). Therefore, the gamma and the log‐normal distributions fit the data equally well but may predict different risk estimates when they are used as an input distribution in an exposure assessment. The collection of event‐based monitoring data and the modeling of larger routine monitoring data sets are recommended to identify appropriately conservative distributions to predict microbial peak events.
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 | 0.028 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".