Drinking water safety plans: barriers and bridges for small systems in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water safety plans provide a relatively new management approach for identifying and addressing risks in a water supply. In 2011, the province of Alberta (Canada) became the first jurisdiction in North America to require that all water supplies develop drinking water safety plans (DWSPs). This research explored the implementation of DWSPs through the experiences of ‘early adopter’ operators who work in small communities. Specifically, in-person open-ended qualitative interviews with operators from 15 small communities from across Alberta were conducted to explore implementation challenges and opportunities. The findings highlight a number of barriers associated with the relationships between decision-making bodies, regulatory authorities and water operators, all of which have the potential to support or hinder the uptake of a DWSP. Findings also indicate that a DWSP can act as a bridge, providing a much-needed tool to facilitate communication about water supplies and help to support and manage relationships between stakeholders. This study revealed a number of important and useful insights to the small community early DWSP adopter experience in Canada that could be applied in other jurisdictions looking to adopt similar practices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".