Application of risk assessment tools to small drinking water systems in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of risk assessment tools have been developed for drinking water systems, but there is a lack of published independent evaluation of how well the tools incorporate the multiple barrier approach to drinking water safety. Selected risk assessment tools were evaluated by applying the tools to five small drinking water systems serving residential developments in British Columbia. The selected risk assessment tools generally identified hazards and vulnerabilities in the source, distribution, storage and monitoring barriers of the water systems. The risk assessment tools had varying levels of success identifying vulnerabilities in the treatment barrier. In some cases, the existing tools consider the presence or absence of a water system barrier, such as a disinfection process or a monitoring procedure, but do not consider how effective or appropriate that barrier is. A common shortcoming of the risk assessment tools is the failure to identify the need for multiple treatment processes capable of removing or inactivating pathogens, which is particularly important for surface water supplies. In addition to not incorporating the multiple barrier approach into the evaluation of the treatment barrier, none of the risk assessment tools successfully reflected the interconnected nature of the water system barriers.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".