Microbiological Guideline Values for Recreational Bathing in Canada: Time for Change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreational bathing is an activity practiced by thousands of Canadians every year. While its health benefits are numerous, bathing in polluted water can also be a source of health problems. These problems are generally nonspecific and are difficult to detect through usual health monitoring systems. Most involve ear and eye ailments, febrile respiratory illness and, particularly, gastroenteritis. In 1992, Health Canada recommended microbiological guideline values for recreational water quality. The values are based on the presence of fecal indicator bacteria, namely, enterococci for marine water, and Escherichia coli or fecal coliforms for fresh water. In marine water, the guideline value is set at 35 enterococci/100 mL, while in fresh water, the standard is 200 E coli/100 mL or 200 fecal coliforms/100 mL when experience demonstrates that over 90% of the fecal coliforms are E coli. Notwithstanding certain variances, many Canadian provinces apply these guidelines. However, in Ontario, the guideline is 100 E coli/100 mL. Over the past several years, many epidemiological studies, including randomized clinical trials, have examined the relationship between bathing in polluted water and ensuing health problems. On review of this literature, the Canadian guideline values for marine water seems appropriate, but scientific evidence argues toward lowering the Canadian guideline values for fresh water to 100 E coli/100 mL, in line with the standard currently in effect in Ontario.
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 | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".