Why Do Some First Nations Communities Have Safe Water and Others Not? Socioeconomic Determinants of Drinking Water Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Securing safe and adequate drinking water is an ongoing issue for many Canadian First Nations communities despite nearly 15 years of reports, studies, policy changes, financial commitments, and regulations. The federal drinking water evaluation scheme is narrowly scoped, ignoring community level social factors, which may play a role in access to safe water in First Nations. This research used the 2006 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada First Nations Drinking Water System Risk Survey data and the Community Well-Being Index, including labour force, education, housing, and income, from the 2006 Census. Bivariate analysis was conducted using the Spearman's correlation, Kendall's tau correlation, and Pearson's correlation. Multivariable analysis was conducted using an ordinal (proportional or cumulative odds) regression model. Results showed that the regression model was significant. Community socioeconomic indicators had no relationship with drinking water risk characterization in both the bivariate and multivariable models, with the sole exception of labour force, which had a significantly positive effect on drinking water risk rankings. Socioeconomic factors were not important in explaining access to safe drinking water in First Nations communities. Improvements in the quality of safe water data as well as an examination of other community processes are required to address this pressing policy issue.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".