Bibliographic record
Abstract
Г11НЕ growing importance of chlorine and its compounds in sanitation JL has led to extensive research into its capabilities as a germicide. In view of the current discussions on the revision of drinking water standards and of the recent remarkable advances in water chlorination, it appears timely to review the bactericidal status of this increasingly useful servant. Not only in water purification, but in other sanitation fields, is chlorine becoming indispensable for the protection of public health. This is largely because it is a powerful germicide, non-poisonous to man when used in the concentrations required to destroy most pathogenic organisms ordinarily encountered in the control of water, milk and other foods for the public. The germicidal efficiencies of chlorine and its compounds have long been known. As early as 1800 (1) it was used as a disinfectant. Its recorded use in water purification dates back to 1850 in Europe (2) and to 1896 in the United States. In 1906 (3) chlorine, in the form of chlorinated lime, came into practical use for water purification in the United States and in 1910 chlorine gas was first used for this purpose. Eight years later (4) over 2,500 municipal plants in the United States were using chlorine; and by 1925 over 75 per cent of the municipal drinking water supplies in North America were so treated. At the present time it is estimated that 85 per cent of the public water supplies are chlorinated (5). Other germicides will also satisfactorily destroy microscopic life but chlorine's unique combination of availability, ease of handling, dispensing simplicity, freedom from poisonous residuals, and its specific high toxicity for most water-borne disease organisms makes it today's most important chemical sanitation agent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.277 | 0.144 |
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".