A Pilot Study into the Use of Springs for Drinking Water in Western and Central Newfoundland, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dissatisfaction with tap water has gradually grown over time and in many places in Canada bottled water and various tap water filtering systems have become increasingly popular. In Newfoundland, road side springs are another popular alternative drinking water supply, yet the Provincial Government does not test or treat this water. This study examines 18 communities in Western Newfoundland to determine why people don't drink tap water, the frequency of use of road side springs, and the bacteriological safety of a sampling of road side springs. The results indicate that the main reason for not drinking tap water was that it was perceived to be unsafe. But springs were used by 23 % of those surveyed and these springs were found to contain E. coli and/or coliforms 43 % of the time. By comparison, tap water testing by Newfoundland Environmental Health Officers found that between 5-6% of the community water supplies in Western and Central Newfoundland recorded the presence of coliform and/or E. Coli in 2007.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it