MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313320311 · doi:10.2166/wh.2022.249

Sources and microbiological quality of domestic water in three rural communities in the southern Caribbean

2022· article· en· W4313320311 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Akilah T. M. Stewart, Catherine Seepersad, Aliya Hosein, John Agard, Adrian Cashman, Dave D. Chadee, Adesh Ramsubhag

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsRainwater harvestingWater supplyWater qualityGroundwaterGeographyWater sourceEnvironmental scienceWater resource managementHydrology (agriculture)Environmental engineeringEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the sources and microbiological quality of domestic water used by rural communities of Speightstown, Barbados; Carriacou, Grenada; and Nariva, Trinidad. The primary water source was harvested rainwater in Carriacou, and the public water supply for Nariva and Speightstown. Secondary water supplies of the communities came from untreated sources including rainwater, wells, boreholes and springs. E. coli was detected at higher frequencies in water from Carriacou (41.3%) and Nariva (47.4%) than Speightstown (3.6%). Generally, more untreated samples of rainwater (44.6%) and surface/ground water (58.3%) were E. coli positive than treated water obtained from the public supply (9.9%). These findings demonstrate the increased risk to residents in rural communities of the Caribbean who utilize untreated rainwater and environmental sources such as springs and wells. These results demonstrate the usefulness of traditional methods such as the compartment bag test in determining the microbiological quality of domestic water in resource-challenged rural communities of the Caribbean.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207