Inorganic contaminants in Canadian First Nation community water systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While previous Canadian studies have examined microbiological water quality in First Nations, there is little published information on inorganic contaminants. In Atlantic Canada, the lead, manganese, and arsenic content of First Nations' drinking water has been measured for more than a decade, but the data have not been analyzed comprehensively. These contaminants are linked with health problems, and high levels in drinking water are a cause for concern. We examined 12 years of data from 47 First Nation community water systems to identify systems experiencing difficulties meeting sampling frequency or regulatory guidelines. While most contaminant concentrations were below guideline values, we identified elevated concentrations and issues with sampling frequency. No system met both sampling frequency requirements - a minimum of one sample per year per analyte - and regulatory guidelines. Exceedance rates for lead, manganese, and arsenic were high in some systems. Moreover, current sampling procedures for lead specify that taps be flushed prior to sampling, which is known to underestimate lead exposure. We find that a switch to random daytime sampling would at least sometimes yield higher estimates of lead at the tap. Our analysis demonstrates the need for increased monitoring and updated sampling procedures to better characterize inorganic contaminant occurrence in First Nations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".