Experience, training and confidence among small, non-community drinking water system operators in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The water operator plays an important role in water safety; however, little published research exists that has examined this role. The purpose of this study was to develop a greater understanding of the experience, existing knowledge, confidence and future training needs of the small, non-community drinking water operator in Ontario in order to help guide future outreach and training opportunities. A cross-sectional telephone survey of 332 small, non-community drinking water operators in Ontario was conducted in July and August 2011. Survey questions pertained to respondents' experience as operators, formal training, perceived importance of water safety issues, confidence in handling water safety issues, and future training needs. Approximately 16% (54/330) of respondents had one year or less experience as a water operator, and 60% (199/332) reported that being a water operator was not a chosen profession. Only 37% (124/332) of operators reported completing operator training. Respondents reported a preference for online training courses or on-site training (compared with a classroom setting). Low training rates, inexperience, and in certain situations, low confidence, among many small water system operators highlight a need to provide continued support to the development of ongoing training opportunities in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".