MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097036860

Water

2004· article· en· W7097036860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathingNatural (archaeology)Water qualityTemperate climateIntertidal zoneWater source
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following report provides a brief overview of extensive studies undertaken in the summer and fall of 2003 to determine the source of Escherichia coli bacteria and the mechanism of transfer to Lake Winnipeg beaches. These studies were undertaken in response to the posting of signs at two Lake Winnipeg beaches for brief periods advising against bathing because of elevated densities of E. coli. These findings will be documented in more detail in a technical report and a manuscript will be prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. The findings identified in the following report significantly enhance the present understanding of water quality at Lake Winnipeg beaches and the largely natural processes responsible for transferring and dispersing bacteria from the foreshore beach region to bathing water. This phenomenon is likely restricted to large lakes such as Lake Winnipeg due to extensive wave action and daily wind-driven water level fluctuations and likely does not occur to any significant extent on smaller lakes. To the best of the authors ’ knowledge, the findings identified in the following report have not been previously reported from any other large lake situated at this northern temperate latitude in Canada. These findings will allow a greater degree of protection to be provided to public health,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2030.076

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207