MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954287936 · doi:10.5864/d2019-012

Public health investigation of swimming pool chlorine gas disinfection systems

2019· article· en· W2954287936 on OpenAlexaffvenue
J. Ivor Norlin

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsInterior Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthHazardous wasteChlorine gasBusinessChlorineWaste managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMedicineChemistryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In February 2012, a chlorine gas leak at a public pool facility in the British Columbia southern interior sent 70 people to hospital for assessment and treatment. As part of the follow-up investigation, the Interior Health (IH) public health engineering team undertook a comprehensive review of chlorine gas disinfection systems in public pools throughout the region. Deficiencies in the capacity to safely capture and release gas leaks were found in all 19 systems inspected. The engineering team subsequently worked with facility owners and area Environmental Health Officers to mitigate high-risk issues. However, less than half of the facilities were changed to on-site chlorine generation systems. Chlorine gas in public pool facilities poses an inherent risk to public health, and regional health authorities are responsible for routinely inspecting and overseeing these systems. The IH public engineering team continues to advocate for transitioning all public pool chlorine gas systems to less hazardous means of disinfection.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health ReviewSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207