Drinking water consumption patterns of residents in a Canadian community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross-sectional survey using computer-assisted telephone interviewing was performed to assess the drinking water consumption patterns in a Canadian community, and to examine the associations between these patterns and various demographic characteristics. The median amount of water consumed daily was four 250 ml servings (1.01), although responses were highly variable (0 to 8.01). Bottled water consumption was common, and represented the primary source of drinking water for approximately 27% of respondents. Approximately 49% of households used water treatment devices to treat their tap water. The observed associations between some demographic characteristics and drinking water consumption patterns indicated potential differences in risk of exposure to waterborne hazards in the population. Our results lend support to the federal review of the bottled water regulations currently in progress in Canada. Additionally, they may lend support to a provincial/territorial government review of bottled water regulations, and both federal and provincial/territorial level reviews of the water treatment device industry. Further investigation of the use of alternative water sources and the perceptions of drinking water in Canada is also needed to better understand, and subsequently address, concerns among Canadians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".