Performance of Private Sponsors towards Sustainable Piped Water Supply in Rural Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluated performance of private sponsor’s in implementing piped water supply schemes through partnership approach in rural villages of Bangladesh. Structured questionnaire were administered and collected data by using an interview method from 21 scheme mangers. Collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Time, cost and efficiency were used as evaluation criteria for both implementation and operation period. The study findings revealed widespread incompetence of sponsors in preparing project proposals. Time spent for construction shows 19% (4 sponsors) complete earlier than planned/required completion period; and 29% (6 sponsors) within the stipulated time whereas, remaining 52% (11 sponsors) with some delay. 5% (1) sponsor started commercial operation with 100% connections whereas, 10% (2), 25% (5) and 15% (3) commissioned the scheme with 60%, 50% and 40% of their target connections. 35% (7) of the sponsors operated their schemes with profit. This planning and management approach may be suitable for implementing sustainable rural piped water supply schemes in countries with similar context like Bangladesh.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".