DRINKING-WATER RISK MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR A TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Walkerton Inquiry Part 2 Report addressed the second part of the mandate from the Government of Ontario under the Public Inquiries Act, following the Walkerton tragedy, namely, "to make such findings and recommendations as the commission considers advisable to ensure the safety of the water supply system in Ontario." In addressing this mandate Justice O'Connor noted: "Perhaps the most significant recommendations in this report address the need for quality management through mandatory accreditation and operational planning. I recommend requiring all operating agencies to become accredited in accordance with a quality management standard-a standard that will be developed by the industry and others knowledgeable in the area and mandated by the MOE." This recommendation reflects a recognition that any narrow set of detailed requirements related to specific water quality issues will not be able to provide sufficiently comprehensive and flexible guidance to cover the diversity of challenges that exist. Rather, by creating and mandating a process to capture and codify the best technical, operating, and managerial practices, a system can be created that will seek to have these best practices adopted across the drinking-water industry. Done well, this will provide the industry and regulators with the culture and capacity to recognize and resolve problems to prevent future drinking-water tragedies. This paper provides some guiding principles that should foster the development of a practical accreditation standard to achieve the foregoing objectives.
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 | 0.042 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".