MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322099305 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-17513

Top-down and bottom-up management of private groundwater contamination risk: A comparative scoping review of similarities, drivers and challenges in two developed regions

2023· preprint· en· W4322099305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon Mooney, Eoin O’Neill, Paul Hynds

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)GroundwaterEnvironmental planningGeographyBusinessEnvironmental resource managementWater resource managementEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While developed nations are assumed to provide high groundwater quality security, populations reliant on (typically rural, unregulated) private domestic groundwater wells are often uniquely vulnerable to supply contamination. The potential health ramifications of exposure to contaminated groundwater may be especially grave for immunosuppressed populations residing in service-deprived and climate-vulnerable areas, necessitating concerted government (educational) and household-level (behavioural) action. In response, a growing number of studies (spanning quantitative contamination risk assessments, policy strategies, communicative interventions and householder surveys) have emerged within the last several decades. To date, few investigations have sought to synthesise this literature and ascertain the potential generality of drivers of both private groundwater contamination and preventive responses in high-income countries. The developed regions of the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Ontario represent an appropriate point of comparison to establish research transferability. Both regions are characterised by high private groundwater reliance (> 10% of their respective populations), pervasive microbial groundwater contamination and significant associations between acute gastrointestinal illness (AGI) and private well use. Consumption of private well water contributes to approximately 4,800 annual cases of AGI in Ontario and as many as 80% of annual cases of verotoxigenic E.coli (VTEC) in the ROI. However, despite similarities, regional discrepancies exist with respect to policy landscapes (e.g., monetary requirements for private water quality testing) and contamination risk profiles (e.g., frequency of extreme weather event concurrence). In efforts to elucidate the potential implications of these phenomena, a scoping review of literature (1990-2022) in the ROI and Ontario outlining risk management measures to prevent private groundwater contamination in the was undertaken. The SPICE (Setting, Population/Phenomenon, Intervention, Setting, Perspective) methodology was utilised to inform literature search terms, with Scopus and Web of Science selected as primary databases for article searches. Following removal of duplicate studies and article screening, 92 articles (Canada = 70, ROI = 22) were retained for analysis. Articles were predominantly comprised of quantitative contamination risk assessment studies (n = 68), with qualitative and quantitative questionnaire investigations (n = 16), interventions (n = 2) and policy studies (n = 6) noticeably less frequent. Quantitative risk assessments published after the year 2000 demonstrated an overwhelming focus on microbial supply contamination, identifying well type and proximity of agricultural activity as significant determinants of supply contamination. Survey studies in both regions also consistently highlighted gender, perceived confidence in maintaining supply and economic and convenience barriers as significant determinants of well user knowledge and behaviour. However, well users in Ontario demonstrated markedly higher rates of prior well testing (irrespective of adherence to regional guidelines), suggesting that incentivised (or free) well testing may lead to significant increases in uptake of well water quality testing. The paucity of identified intervention studies suggests that increased research investigating methods of well user outreach and groundwater risk communication will be necessary in the future to determine the broad efficacy of risk communication in developed nations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0190.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→