Water consumption habits of a south-western Ontario community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross-sectional telephone survey (n = 2,332) was performed to better understand the drinking water consumption patterns among residents in Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada. We investigated the daily volume of water consumed (including tap and bottled) and factors related to that consumption. In addition, we investigated the daily volume of cold tap water consumed by those respondents who consumed no bottled water and the factors that influence this consumption. Among study respondents, 51% exclusively drank tap water, 34% exclusively drank bottled water and 14.5% drank both, with 10 to 75% of all cold water consumed in the previous day being bottled. The mean volume of water consumed in a day (including bottled and tap water) was 1.39 l. Among those who reported to exclusively consume tap water, the mean daily volume of tap water consumed was 1.45 l. The daily amount of cold water consumed in a day was lower for older respondents, more markedly for men than women. More educated respondents consumed more water during the day. Roughly 45% of households reported that they used a carbon filter to treat their water. Roughly 5% of respondents used advanced home treatment devices, including ultraviolet light, reverse osmosis, ozonation or distillation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".