A comparison of recreational water illness awareness and frequency of swimming
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 Objective: Swimming pools have potential to create health hazards that range from physical, chemical to biological. Biological concerns center on communicable diseases which can be spread through poor hygiene practices. To prevent the spread of disease, swimmers must be informed and practice appropriate hygiene. This study aims to determine whether the frequency of swimming had an influence on swimming pool hygiene knowledge. Method: Survey questions focusing on risk factors for communicable disease spread, and personal hygiene practices were developed using the pool operation handbooks, input from environmental health instructors at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, as well as past surveys from other studies. Pool patrons were surveyed at Hillcrest Community Centre in Vancouver. Scores from these tests were then analyzed in NCSS9 using one-way ANOVA tests and Two-Sample t-tests. Results: 167 validated surveys were analyzed. The most often incorrectly answered questions were in regards to the duration of avoiding swimming after diarrheal illness, pre-swim hygiene, and after bathroom use hygiene. No statistically significant difference in mean test score was found in individuals that swam more than once a week, more than once a month, or less than once a month. Statistically significant differences in mean test scores were found for individuals that read signs, and age group. Conclusion: From the data, it is observed that those who swam more frequently were not more informed on pool hygiene issues than those who swam less. The sample size (n=167) for this conclusion may be too small, since beta value was 87.5%.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".