Evaluation of Risk Assessment Tools to Predict Canadian Waterborne Disease Outbreaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A number of risk assessment tools and guidance documents have been developed by regulatory and nongovernmental bodies to enable risk assessment of drinking water systems. To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of available risk assessment tools, three of the existing risk assessment tools were applied to waterborne disease outbreaks in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, and Walkerton, Ontario, to determine whether the risk assessment tools would have indicated that the water systems were at risk of failure. Both of these outbreaks are sufficiently well documented to allow testing of the risk assessment tools. Both of the outbreaks occurred partly due to vulnerabilities that prevented the respective water systems from having effective multiple barriers to drinking water contamination. The risk assessment tools generally identified the hazards that resulted in contamination of the source water. However, the different tools had different levels of success in identifying vulnerabilities in the downstream barriers such as treatment processes and water quality monitoring activities. None of the risk assessment tools successfully incorporated the interdependent nature of the multiple barriers of drinking water safety.
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 | 0.058 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".