MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134681164 · doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2013.063

Implementation of Alberta's drinking water safety plans

2013· article· en· W2134681164 on OpenAlexaffabout
D. C. Reid, K. Abramowski, A.E. Beier, Aaron Janzen, Dirk J. Lok, H. Mack, H. Radhakrishnan, Muhammad Mahbubur Rahman, R. Schroth, R. Vatcher

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Water safetyKey (lock)Resource (disambiguation)Quality (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Action (physics)Water supplyControl (management)Computer scienceWater qualityEnvironmental planningBusinessEngineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer securityEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, the regulatory approach to maintaining the quality and safety of drinking water has largely been a prescriptive one based on the ability of any given supply to meet standards set for a number of different chemical and biological parameters. There are a number of issues around the assumptions and the limitations of a sampling and analysis regime. The basis for such regimes is essentially reactive rather than proactive and, consequently, the cause of the concern may already have impacted consumers before any effective action can be taken. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development has developed a template for recording drinking water safety plans together with guidance notes to help complete them. The template has been developed in MS-Excel and has been designed in a straightforward step-wise manner with guidance on the completion of each sheet. It includes four main risk tables covering each main element of water supply which are pre-populated with commonly found ‘generic’ risks and these are carefully assessed before considering what action is required to deal with significant risks. Following completion of the risk tables, key risks are identified and the interventions required to bring them into control.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207