Indicator-based rural water service sustainability assessment: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this paper is to present the state of the art on the sustainability indices of rural water services in order to identify gaps in knowledge. The methodological approach used was to conduct online searches using the databases of Google Scholar, Web of Science, Pub Med, the International Water Association, and ResearchGate. Several indices have been identified in the literature including the Canadian Water Sustainability Index, Index of Drinking Water Adequacy, the Sustainable Water Governance Index, equity index in water and sanitation, WASH performance Index, Sustainable Water Management Index, and Index of water service quality. However, these indices do not provide an integrative, contextualized and prospective analysis of the sustainability of water services. In addition, these indices select only a few evaluation criteria deemed relevant. In other words, these indices choose to make visible certain phenomena and therefore make others invisible, according to the logic of action of each and to certain social compromises. These difficulties therefore encourage the development of a new index to provide an integrative, contextualized and prospective analysis of the sustainability of rural water services.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".