Variation in urban and rural water fluoride levels in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare levels of water fluoridation in urban and rural distribution systems in Ontario. METHODS: A random sample of 17 urban and 17 rural municipalities was taken from a list of 445 municipalities. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) website was used to identify the water treatment plants that supply these municipalities, and water quality reports published by each of these distribution systems for 2007 were collected. For municipal distribution systems without published reports, staff were contacted directly. RESULTS: Far more urban distribution systems (82%) fluoridate their water compared with rural systems (18%). Most urban water suppliers (14 of 17) meet the 2000 MOE fluoride level standard of 0.5-0.8 mg/L, a range that includes the recently adopted Health Canada standard of 0.7 +/- 0.1 mg/L. Only 3 of 17 rural distributors artificially fluoridate their water and 11 of 16 supply suboptimal levels of fluoride. CONCLUSION: Most Ontarians who live in rural areas receive levels of fluoride that are outside MOE standards. Urban water distribution systems that regulate their fluoride content are compliant with the range recommended in 2000. The communal water supplies of some rural residents of southwestern Ontario contain levels of natural fluoride that are well above the standard for artificially fluoridated water.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".