MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330091894 · doi:10.2166/wh.2016.262

QMRA and water safety management: review of application in drinking water systems

2016· review· en· W2330091894 on OpenAlex
Susan R. Petterson, Nicholas J. Ashbolt

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Water safetyRelevance (law)Decision support systemComputer scienceEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringEnvironmental scienceWater qualityData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA), the assessment of microbial risks when model inputs and estimated health impacts are explicitly quantified, is a valuable tool to support water safety plans (WSP). In this paper, research studies undertaken on the application of QMRA in drinking water systems were reviewed, highlighting their relevance for WSP. The important elements for practical implementation include: the data requirements to achieve sufficient certainty to support decision-making; level of expertise necessary to undertake the required analysis; and the accessibility of tools to support wider implementation, hence these aspects were the focus of the review. Recommendations to support the continued and growing application of QMRA to support risk management in the water sector are provided.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it