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 OpenAlexafffund
Susan R. Petterson, Nicholas J. Ashbolt

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207