MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045610013 · doi:10.2166/ws.2010.511

Factors influencing public perception and use of municipal drinking water

2010· article· en· W2045610013 on OpenAlexaffabout
François Proulx, Manuel J. Rodríguez, Jean Sérodes, Luis F. Miranda

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology Water Supply · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalHôpital du Saint-Sacrement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTap waterRespondentWater qualityWater supplyConsumption (sociology)PopulationQuality (philosophy)Survey data collectionGeographyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental healthEnvironmental engineeringStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite more stringent regulations concerning drinking water quality in many countries, the public is increasingly concerned about the safety of municipal tap water. For this reason, acquiring a better understanding of consumer perception of tap water is an important issue for water authorities and utility managers. In this study, water consumption choice and profile were investigated. The case under study is the territory of a water supply system in Québec City (Canada). Data on drinking water consumption was obtained through a questionnaire-based survey. Survey results showed that an important proportion (about one third) of the population under study do not drink tap water. To explain consumption choice (tap water or not) and consumption profile (levels of tap water consumption), binary and ordinal logistic regression analyses (LGA) were performed based on survey responses and complementary data resulting from measurements of water quality parameters in 32 locations throughout the water distribution system. Water quality information was managed through a water quality index (WQI). The WQI of each sampling point was associated with the location of each survey respondent using a geographical information system (GIS). LGA results showed that the geographical location of the consumer within the distribution system, the WQI and perceived risk toward water consumption were the main factors explaining both the water consumption choice and tap water consumption profile.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & Technology Water SupplySame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207