MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147481938 · doi:10.2166/wh.2011.051

Drinking water consumption patterns in Canadian communities (2001–2007)

2011· article· en· W2147481938 on OpenAlexaffabout
S.M. Roche, Andria Q Jones, Shannon E. Majowicz, Scott A. McEwen, Katarina Pintar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBottled waterTap waterConsumption (sociology)Water consumptionEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceGeographyDemographyMedicineEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pooled analysis of seven cross-sectional studies from Newfoundland and Labrador, Waterloo and Hamilton Regions, Ontario and Vancouver, East Kootenay and Northern Interior Regions, British Columbia (2001 to 2007) was performed to investigate the drinking water consumption patterns of Canadians and to identify factors associated with the volume of tap water consumed. The mean volume of tap water consumed was 1.2 L/day, with a large range (0.03 to 9.0 L/day). In-home water treatment and interactions between age and gender and age and bottled water use were significantly associated with the volume of tap water consumed in multivariable analyses. Approximately 25% (2,221/8,916) of participants were classified as bottled water users, meaning that 75% or more of their total daily drinking water intake was bottled. Approximately 48.6% (4,307/8,799) of participants used an in-home treatment method to treat their tap water for drinking purposes. This study provides a broader geographic perspective and more current estimates of Canadian water consumption patterns than previous studies. The identified factors associated with daily water consumption could be beneficial for risk assessors to identify individuals who may be at greater risk of waterborne illness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207