MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771853979 · doi:10.1177/1087724x17745083

Assessing Participant Compliance With Point-of-Use Water Treatment: An Exploratory Investigation

2017· article· en· W2771853979 on OpenAlexafffund
Morgan C. MacDonald, Luke Juran, Srinivasan Sekar, Jincy Jose, Syed Imran Ali, Prema Rajagopalan, Kevin R. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Works Management & Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersGriffith UniversityInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)Intervention (counseling)Government (linguistics)BusinessEnvironmental healthExploratory researchWater qualityEnvironmental economicsPublic economicsPsychologyMedicineNursingSocial psychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field studies on household water treatment and safe storage (HWTS) suggest that positive health outcomes are strongly linked to user compliance. We investigated factors that influenced compliance in a marginalized community of South India where residents worked with researchers to develop a water treatment intervention in absence of government water utilities. Survey and water quality data were collected during a 12-month randomized controlled trial of 124 households. Data were used to construct indices for social, technical, and institutional predictors of compliance including technological effectiveness, gender, community capacity, perceived benefit, and inherent demand. Perceived benefit was the only parameter to be significantly associated with compliance. Households in which participants had “very high” levels of perceived benefit were over 4 times more likely to comply with instructions on water treatment and maintenance with the HWTS. These findings suggest that compliance, and therefore disease prevention, can be improved by enhancing perceived benefit to the user.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Works Management & PolicySame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207