Occurrence of Vibrio Species in Marine Sources Surroundings Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a lack of information on the presence of vibrios in the marine environment in the Caribbean. The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of Vibrios in the coastal waters of Bonaire. Fifty samples of marine water collected at different depths from various sources around Bonaire were examined for the presence of vibrios. Species identification was confirmed by KB007 HiVibrioTM, Identification Kit, and TOFEL-MALDI. Forty of the samples contained Vibrio alginolyticus, 33 yielded V. parahaemolyticus and 29 showed the presence of V. vulnificus / V. cholerae. Regarding total colony counts in the sample, 47.4% of the colonies were V. alginolyticus, 35.2% were V. parahaemolyticus, and 17.4% represented V. vulnificus / V. cholerae. Further, of the 25 surface samples from various sites, 14 had a colony count percentage of 50% or greater number of V. alginolyticus. Another 10 sites had a colony count percentage of 50% or greater for V. parahaemolyticus; three of them had a colony count percentage of 50% or greater for V. vulnificus / V. cholerae. The present study constitutes the first study of its kind providing evidence of the prevalence of pathogenic Vibrio species, viz. V. alginolyticus, V. parahaemolyticus, and V. vulnificus / V. cholerae in marine water from the Dutch Caribbean.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".