MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912215896 · doi:10.1002/aws2.1121

State approaches to addressing cyanotoxins in drinking water

2019· article· en· W2912215896 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicole Yeager, Adam T. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueAWWA Water Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of CanadaPublic Health Agency of CanadaWater Environment and Reuse FoundationAmerican Water Works Association Research FoundationWater Research FoundationPennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsCylindrospermopsinEnvironmental healthJurisdictionClean Water ActAgency (philosophy)Environmental planningEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionScope (computer science)CyanotoxinEnvironmental resource managementWater qualityPolitical scienceMicrocystinEcologyLawBiologyMedicineCyanobacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyanobacterial blooms present a risk to water supplies, especially in nutrient‐enriched bodies of water. Some algal blooms can produce cyanotoxins at levels of concern for human health and aquatic ecosystems. Currently no federally enforceable limits exist for microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, or any other cyanotoxins. However, several states have taken action based on nonenforceable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) health advisories and their own processes. This study assessed the status and scope of those state‐level programs. Data were collected through interviews with state regulatory officials accompanied by publicly available information. The authors contacted officials in each of the 50 U.S. states. Forty‐six provided responses, and four have only publicly available information. Twenty‐nine states reported to have already developed or are currently developing guidance, while 13 indicated that cyanotoxins are not an issue of concern within their jurisdiction. Two states appear in both categories. The statuses of the remaining 10 states' programs fall in between.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAWWA Water ScienceSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207