MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309569459 · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.114060

Domestic water security in the Arctic: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4309569459 on OpenAlex
Alexandra Cassivi, Anna Covey, Manuel J. Rodríguez, Stéphanie Guilherme

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundUniversité Laval
KeywordsWater securityArcticEnvironmental planningThe arcticEnvironmental securityBusinessEnvironmental healthEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceOceanographyWater resourcesMedicineEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: More than 50 million people living in the Arctic nations remain without access to safely managed drinking water services. Remote northern communities, where large numbers of Indigenous peoples live, are disproportionally affected. Recent research has documented water and health-related problems among Indigenous communities, including poor water quality and insufficient quantities of water. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to examine the extent of available water security evidence as well as identify research gaps and intervention priorities to improve access to domestic water in the Arctic and Subarctic regions of the eight Arctic nations (Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and the United States (Alaska)). METHODS: An extensive literature review was conducted to retrieve relevant documentation. Arctic & Antarctic Regions, Compendex, Geobase, Georef, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched to identify records for inclusion. The initial searches yielded a total of 1356 records. Two independent reviewers systematically screened identified records using selection criteria. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize evidence of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 55 studies, mostly conducted in Canada and the United States, were included and classified by four predetermined major dimensions: 1) Water accessibility and availability; 2) Water quality assessment; 3) Water supply and health; 4) Preferences and risk perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review used a global approach to provide researchers and stakeholders with a summary of the evidence available regarding water security and domestic access in the Arctic. Culturally appropriate health-based interventions are necessary to ensure inclusive water services and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets for universal access to water.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.382 · 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