Assessing the knowledge, attitude and practices of hikers on drinking surface water while hiking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hiking is a popular outdoor activity among British Columbians. Within this group of hikers there is bound to be a wide range of knowledge for what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in terms of health and safety practices while hiking. Assessing hiker’s knowledge, attitude and practices regarding drinking water while hiking can help identify whether education for safe drinking water for hikers is needed to aid in the prevention of waterborne illnesses. In addition, potential barriers to hikers treating their water in the wilderness can be determined, with the goal of being able to reduce these barriers in the future. Methods: The survey was created using Survey Monkey and distributed as an online self-administered survey through Facebook and email. The survey contained 18 questions which consisted of demographic and knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) questions regarding drinking surface water while hiking. Chi-square statistical tests were used to analyze the data. Results: Of the 328 participants; 72.7% were female, 26.1% male, 0.6% other and 0.6% preferred not to answer. The distribution of age groups was as follows: 31.4% were 19-30 years old, 27.6% were 31-45 years old, 26.4% were 46-60 years old, 14.0% were 61+ years old, and 0.6% preferred not to answer. This study found that the more outdoor knowledge hikers had, the more often they treated surface water used for drinking water (P=0.000), that hiker’s attitude on how risky they thought drinking untreated surface water was affected how often they treated drinking water from surface water sources (P=0.000). The more advanced hikers had more outdoor knowledge (P=0.001), younger hikers thought that drinking untreated surface water was less risky (P=0.025), post-secondary education did not determine how much outdoor knowledge hikers had (P=0.088) and males treated their water less often than females (P = 0.014). Conclusion: This study identified a need for accessible outdoor education with respect to safe drinking water. This education can help hikers make informed decisions to safeguard their health while hiking. This information can be distributed by outdoor organizations, government organizations, high school health education classes, and integrated into outdoor advertisements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".