MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561183469 · doi:10.3390/su7089787

The Toledo Drinking Water Advisory: Suggested Application of the Water Safety Planning Approach

2015· article· en· W1561183469 on OpenAlexafffund
Savitri Jetoo, Velma I. Grover, Gail Krantzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHealth Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)EutrophicationEnvironmental planningCorporate governanceBusinessWater safetyWater treatmentWater resource managementEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringWater qualityGeographyFinanceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 2 August 2014 the city of Toledo, in Ohio USA issued a “do not drink” water advisory and declared a state of emergency. This was as a result of elevated levels of the toxin microcystin in the final treated water, a dangerous toxin produced by the algae cyanobacteria. The Toledo water crisis is a key focusing event that can advance dialogue on eutrophication governance in the context of public health. This paper examines the Toledo water ban with the aim of determining whether this crisis could have been averted. Further, we explore how this event can be used to stimulate action on eutrophication governance, to motivate action to protect water at its source. We use the World Health Organization’s Water Safety Planning Methodology to show that the crisis could have been averted with some simple risk management actions. We also show that a water safety planning approach could lead to well developed operational and maintenance planning resulting in a higher probability of safe drinking 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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations88
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207