100 лет законодательного регулирования качества питьевой воды. Ретроспектива, современное состояние и перспективы
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considered the history of the development of legislative requirements to the regulation of the quality of drinking water in different countries and international organizations during the period from 1912 to the present time. In terms of comparative analysis there is analyzed the current state of regulatory frameworks of the Russian Federation, WHO, EU, Finland, the UK, Singapore, Australia, Japan, China, Nigeria, the United States and Canada in the field of providing favorable conditions of population drinking water use. There has been noted the significant progress in standardization of the content of the biogenic elements and chemical pollution of drinking water in the absence of uniform requirements to the composition and properties of drinking water globally, that is bound to the need to take into account the national peculiarities of drinking water supply within the separate countries. As promising directions for improving regulation of drinking water quality there are noted: the development of new standards for prioritized water pollution, periodic review of standards after appearance of the new scientific data on the biological action of substances, the use of the concept of risk, the harmonization of the normative values and the assessment of the possibility of introduction into the practice the one more criterion of profitableness of population water use the bioenergetic state of the water
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.036 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".