MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620153735 · doi:10.47339/ephj.2015.129

Mitigating hand contamination at recycling depots

2015· article· en· W2620153735 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Amanda Ding, Environmental Health BCIT School of Health Sciences, Bobby Sidhu

Bibliographic record

VenueBCIT Environmental Public Health Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
KeywordsSignageHygieneHand washingToxicologyEnvironmental healthOperations managementEnvironmental scienceBusinessEngineeringMedicineAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 Background and Purpose: Although the number of recyclers and amount of accepted materials and their contaminants has increased over the decades, the adequate provision of hand washing equipment to mitigate the transfer of infectious agents at recycling depots has not been well studied. Minimal Standard (MS) depots and STAR-Rated (SR) depots are inspected by Encorp Pacific (Canada) auditors, not health inspectors, and claim to provide adequate hand hygiene equipment. This study compared the adequate provision of essential hand washing equipment at MS and SR depots in Metro Vancouver to determine if they met public health standards. Methods: Inspections of presence/absence of essential hand washing equipment (tap with running water, soap in soap dispenser, hand drying equipment and signage) were carried out at 35 depots throughout Metro Vancouver (Vancouver West End to Abbotsford). Depots recorded with all components were assigned a Pass grade; depots with any one missing component or more were assigned a Fail grade. MS/SR and Pass/Fail grade was analyzed using Chi-squared test on NCSS 9 Statistical Software (NCSS). Results: Of the 35 depots surveyed, fails were present in both MS depots and SR depots. Very few depots had signage. Main reasons for Fails included broken hand dryers and lack of soap. All depots with hand wash stations had running water. Pearson’s Chi-square results for observed Pass/Fail and MS/SR depots compared to expected values were unable to reject null hypothesis (P-value 0.911 > 0.05) even when provision of signage was excluded as a criterion (P-value 0.537 > 0.05). Conclusion: There was no association between depot standard rating and provision of essential hand washing equipment. Lack of signage failed 74.3% of depots but excluding signage from the criteria failed 34.3% of depots. Hand washing is important in mitigating risk of infection from hand contamination from household recyclables and those sorted from waste. Inspecting depots and educating operators from a public health viewpoint may increase provision of essential hand washing equipment and increase hand washing compliance in public users.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBCIT Environmental Public Health JournalSame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207