Drinking Water Management: Health Risk Perceptions and Choices in First Nations and Non-First Nations Communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between tap water and health has been a topic of public concern and calls for better management in Canada since well-publicized contamination events in two provinces (Ontario and Saskatchewan) in 2000-2001. This study reports the perspectives on health risks from tap water and corresponding use of, and spending on, bottled water in a number of different communities in Canada. In 2009-2010, four First Nations communities (three from Ontario and one from Saskatchewan) and a geographically diverse sample of non-First Nations Canadians were surveyed about their beliefs concerning health risks from tap water and their spending practices for bottled water as a substitute. Responses to five identical questions were examined, revealing that survey respondents from Ontario First Nations communities were more likely than non-First Nations Canadians to believe bottled water is safer than tap water (OR 1.6); more likely to report someone became ill from tap water (OR 3.6); more likely to express water and health concerns related to tap water consumption (OR 2.4); and more likely to spend more on bottled water (OR 4.9). On the other hand, participants from one Saskatchewan First Nations community were less likely than non-First Nations Canadians to believe that someone had become ill from drinking tap water (OR 3.8), less likely to believe bottled water is safer than tap (OR 2.0), and less likely to have health concerns with tap water (OR 1.5). These differences, however, did not translate into differences in the likelihood of high bottled water expenditures or being a 100% bottled water consumer. The paper discusses how the differences observed may be related to water supply and regulation, trust, perceived control, cultural background, location, and past experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".