Environmental health officer’s knowledge of sensory deprivation tanks in BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Personal service establishments are abundant such as piercing shops, tattoo parlours, spas and now float spas. Sensory deprivation tanks were popular in the 1980s and have come back as a new way to relax, reduce pain and relieve stress and to provide a complete deprivation of the senses. The sanitation of these tanks have caused concern in the public health field as bacteria and parasites can easily live and proliferate in the tank water. Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) have to keep up to date with new or returning technology in order to provide information to the public and to ensure their safety. This research project investigated EHOs with differing years of employment in the field, geographic working location and age and their knowledge of sensory deprivation tanks. Methods: A survey created in Google Forms and Survey Monkey was disseminated through e-mail who then forwarded an e-mail to all EHOs in BC. The survey asked demographic questions, health and safety, sanitation and disinfection and general knowledge of floatation tanks. A t-test and ANOVA was used to analyze the data. Results: Three comparisons were tested: first was the number of years an EHO has worked in the field and their test score; second was their age and test score; and last was their geographic location and test score. The null hypotheses were not rejected as the p-value was found to be greater than 0.05 for all of the variables analyzed. Discussion: Overall, there was weak knowledge in EHOs and due to the small sample size there was weak statistical significance between the associations found regarding the number of years an EHO has worked in the field, their age and geographic location where they work compared to their test scores. Conclusion: More information needs to be provided to all EHOs to keep them updated on new personal service establishments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".