MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525901904 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n5p10

An Assessment of Water Accessibility in the Kuvukiland Informal Settlement of Tsumeb in Namibia

2016· article· en· W2525901904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angula Nahas Enkono, Alfons Mosimane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformal settlementsSettlement (finance)Human settlementPopulationStakeholderSpan (engineering)Resource (disambiguation)GeographySocioeconomicsWater supplyBusinessEconomic growthSociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringEconomicsDemographyArchaeologyEnvironmental engineeringCivil engineeringPublic relationsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<span lang="EN-US">Challenges of water supply in informal settlements have been observed in different parts of the world. This study evaluates accessibility to water in the Kuvukiland informal settlement. The study employed two methods</span><span lang="EN-ZA">:</span><span lang="EN-US"> a semi structured questionnaire and in-depth interviews. Semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect the data from 50 respondents in the Kuvukiland informal settlement, and the in-depth interviews were carried out with five key informants. The findings suggest that access to water in informal settlements is a challenge, because more than half of the population in Kuvukiland live more than a kilometre from the water points. Further findings also show that affordability is a critical issue, because the more than half of the population are unemployed, and as a result they cannot afford to pay for water. Finally the findings are that, water supply in Kuvukiland does not follow an integrated water resource management approach. In addition, there is poor community involvement, and stakeholder participation is weak.</span>

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 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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207