MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021796029 · doi:10.2166/wh.2014.054

Arsenic in private drinking water wells: an assessment of jurisdictional regulations and guidelines for risk remediation in North America

2014· review· en· W2021796029 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Heather Chappells, Louise Parker, Conrad V. Fernandez, Cathy Conrad, John Drage, Gary O'toole, Norma Campbell, Trevor Dummer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityNova Scotia Health AuthorityNova Scotia Department of EnergyIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Environmental planningGroundwaterEnvironmental healthBusinessPublic healthArsenic contamination of groundwaterSafe Drinking Water ActRisk assessmentEnvironmental remediationRisk managementEnvironmental resource managementWater resource managementEnvironmental scienceWater qualityMedicineEngineeringContaminationComputer securityFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arsenic is a known carcinogen found globally in groundwater supplies due to natural geological occurrence. Levels exceeding the internationally recognized safe drinking water standard of 10 μg/L have been found in private drinking water supplies in many parts of Canada and the United States. Emerging epidemiological evidence confirms groundwater arsenic to be a significant health concern, even at the low to moderate levels typically found in this region. These findings, coupled with survey data reporting limited public adherence to testing and treatment guidelines, have prompted calls for improved protective measures for private well users. The purpose of this review is to assess current jurisdictional provisions for private well water protection in areas where arsenic is known to naturally occur in groundwater at elevated levels. Significant limitations in risk management approaches are identified, including inconsistent and uncoordinated risk communication approaches, lack of support mechanisms for routine water testing and limited government resources to check that testing and treatment guidelines are followed. Key action areas are discussed that can help to build regulatory, community and individual capacity for improved protection of private well water supplies and enhancement of 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)0.006
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.359 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207