MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328122522 · doi:10.1002/9781119569503.ch9

Risk Analysis for Indoor Swimming Pools

2023· other· en· W4328122522 on OpenAlexaff
Sana Saleem, Haroon R. Mian, Manjot Kaur, Roberta Dyck, Guangji Hu, Kasun Hewage, Rehan Sadiq

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrihalomethaneEnvironmental scienceRecreationChlorineFuzzy logicEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceChemistryEcologyWater treatmentBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In indoor swimming pools, organic content such as urine, sweat, hair, and personal care products introduced by swimmers readily reacts with chlorine disinfectant, which results in the production of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in water. One of the most commonly formed DBPs, trihalomethane (THM), not only has an impact on recreational and competitive swimmers but can also be harmful to nonswimmers. It is crucial to evaluate the formation risk of DBPs in indoor swimming pools of different types, including lap, leisure, and hot tub. This chapter addresses the risk analysis for DBPs in indoor swimming pools using a fuzzy-based approach to incorporate the uncertainty. The likelihood and consequences are defined using fuzzy numbers to identify the fuzzy risk as the product of both likelihood and consequence. The resultant defuzzified risk will be categorized on a linguistic scale very low , low , medium , high , and very high to estimate the formation risk level of the different pool types.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207