Differentiating between the possibility and probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with wastewater: empirical evidence is needed to substantiate risk
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
People infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) shed the virus and its genetic material via their sputum, nasopharyngeal secretions, saliva, urine and feces (Cevik et al.2021). Hence, public health and water quality scientists throughout the world have been monitoring untreated and/or primary treated wastewater and sludge for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in communities (https://arcg.is/1aummW). Numerous reviews have discussed the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to humans from exposure to wastewater or waters receiving untreated or inadequately treated wastewater based on limited empirical evidence (Adelodun et al. 2020;Bilal et al. 2020;Olusola-Makinde and Reuben 2020;Elsamadony et al. 2021;Khorram-Manesh, Goniewicz and Burkle 2021;Shutler et al. 2021). Multiple transmission routes have been suggested, including waterborne transmission, airborne transmission, contact with contaminated surfaces (fomites) and subsequent touching of mucous membranes such as the mouth, nose, or eyes. Herein, we briefly summarize the empirical evidence pertaining to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 associated with wastewater exposure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it