An overview of water quality regulation or standards in swimming pools, drinking water, and hot springs in Germany, Canada, and Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo detalla las regulaciones en la calidad del agua en piscinas y agua potable en Alemania, Canadá y Colombia, con una comparación con la regulación existente y los estándares de calidad de las aguas termales. Canadá, Alemania y Colombia regulan que el agua potable debe estar libre de niveles inseguros de sustancias y patógenos, especificando los parámetros microbiológicos y químicos que deben seguirse. Las piscinas en Canadá, Alemania y Colombia tienen regulaciones o estándares específicos para parámetros microbiológicos y químicos que deben seguirse. Al igual que la regulación del agua potable, el agua debe estar libre de organismos patógenos para conservar su calidad de agua. Por otro lado, en el caso de aguas termales donde el bañista tiene condiciones similares a las de las piscinas, Canadá y Alemania no cuentan con regulaciones o normas específicas para el agua de aguas termales. En cambio, se aplican a las aguas termales los mismos requisitos microbianos y químicos que para el agua de piscinas según la Normativa de piscinas públicas de Canadá y la norma Din 19643 de Alemania. Actualmente, Colombia no cuenta con reglamentos o normas sobre la calidad de las aguas termales, tal como lo establece el artículo 6 del Decreto 554 de 2015.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".