A bottom up approach to evaluate risk assessment tools for drinking water safety in First Nations communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe drinking water is a basic need; and risk assessment tools may assist in prioritizing actions to improve water safety.The objective of this research was to determine the appropriateness of current risk assessment approaches for First Nations drinking water systems.Criteria to evaluate risk assessment approaches were developed by combining common elements from literature, key informant interviews, and surveys.The criteria were compared against selected tools for drinking water risk assessment, including tools developed by Australia, Montana, Indian and Northern Affairs, and the University of Guelph.None of the tools, as available, met all of the criteria.Important considerations were found to include the operator, monitoring and recordkeeping, maintenance, technical considerations, emergency response plans, and source water protection.The tools were generally weak in assessing some potential challenges facing small, remote, and First Nations communities; including financial constraints, and taking a holistic view of 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 | 0.070 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".