MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784057728 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.c436

Increased Risks of Waterborne Disease Outbreaks in Northern Ontario due to Climate Change

2018· article· en· W2784057728 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Yi Wang, Edward A. McBean, Bahram Gharabaghi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWaterborne diseasesOutbreakTurbidityWater sourceClimate changeEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental healthWater resource managementGeographyEnvironmental protectionMedicineVirologyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drinking water advisories (DWAs) are issued when source water turbidity is high, because of concern for waterborne disease outbreaks.Small drinking water treatment systems (SDWTS) for First Nations communities in northern regions in Ontario that rely primarily on surface water sources are at risk during heavy storm events due to erosion in the catchment area which causes poor intake water quality to the SDWTS.This study presents a novel method for assessing the potential contribution of climate change to an increased risk of DWAs being issued for rural communities.Trend analysis using rainfall records at three climate stations located in Northern Ontario shows increasing trends of annual maximum five-day cumulative rainfall amounts over the last 3 decades.The 1 d cumulative rainfall amounts for events occurring 2 times/y on average indicate statistically significant increasing trends of heavy rainfall events, and therefore potentially higher risks of waterborne disease outbreaks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207