MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398184199 · doi:10.2166/wh.2024.002

Ensuring safe drinking water: converting commitment into action and foresight

2024· article· en· W4398184199 on OpenAlexaff
Steve E. Hrudey, María J. Gunnarsdóttir, Annalisa Contos, Susan Petterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Futures studiesBusinessEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

20 years have passed since the World Health Organization (WHO) published its third edition of Guidelines for Drinkingwater Quality (WHO 2004), a major advance in the guidance for water-providers to ensure safe drinking water.This advance was the product of more than a decade of international discussion about how to better prevent contamination of drinking water by adopting a preventive risk management approach.The prevailing perspectives about ensuring safe drinking water in the 1990s had been dominated by a primary focus on setting and meeting quantitative limits for an expanding list of water contaminants monitored in finished drinking water.This approach is inherently reactive rather than preventive because treated water monitoring is not continuous for most contaminants and results are normally not available until after the drinking water has been consumed.Drinking water guidelines needed to be restructured to provide a fundamentally preventive risk management approach developed to achieve health-based targets.Those guidelines also needed to establish a more realistic balance for microbial pathogens versus chemical contaminants.That balance needed to recognize the substantial and certain evidence that pathogens in drinking water cause adverse human health outcomes versus the much more uncertain evidence for most chemical contaminants.The latter mainly warrant control from a precautionary public health perspective rather than the certain drinking water health risks of pathogens confirmed by experience.An early influential proposal to improve the capability of drinking water guidelines was provided by Havelaar (1994) suggesting a risk management approach for drinking water guidelines modeled on what had been adopted internationally for food safety.This approach was pursued by some European nations (e.g., Iceland, Switzerland).Dr. Jamie Bartram, in charge of the WHO drinking water guidelines program sought adoption of a risk management approach and led a major international effort to address improvements that was addressed by a 1999 expert meeting in Stockholm where foundational concepts for water safety plans (WSPs) were developed (Bartram et al. 2001;Deere et al. 2001).Meanwhile, Australia was also pursuing a risk and total quality management-oriented restructuring of its national drinking water guidelines after the 1998 'Sydney Water Crisis' (Clancy 2000) by means of a working group established by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) from 1999 to 2002 (Rizak et al. 2003).These parallel initiatives led to a week-long joint meeting of the WHO expert group with the NHMRC working group in Adelaide in May 2001 to compare their respective risk management approaches.These activities also led the founders of the Global Water Research Coalition (https:// globalwaterresearchcoalition.net) to initiate the creation of the Bonn Network that resulted in the 2004 Bonn Charter for Safe Drinking Water (IWA 2004) and an international conference in Berlin in April 2003(Schmoll & Chorus 2003) that elaborated on and promoted a risk management approach to ensuring safe drinking water.Ultimately, these risk management initiatives became official with the publication of the third edition of the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (WHO 2004) that formally introduced the concept of WSPs and the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC 2004) that were fundamentally restructured to incorporate a Framework for Management of Drinking Water Quality.WHO and IWA sponsored and launched an online resource to provide access to resources in support of water safety planning (https://wsportal.org).Major documentation about the objectives and means to implement WSPs effectively was published (Davison et al. 2005; Howard & Schmoll 2006) and the first edition of the WHO Water Safety Plan manual (Bartram et al. 2009) was introduced at an IWA-WHO Conference on Water Safety Plans -Global Experiences and Future Trends in Lisbon in May 2008.Experience and insights about water safety planning were captured by Breach (2012) and guidance for WSPs for small drinking water supplies was published (WHO 2012).Rickert et al. (2016) provided an overview of how risks for surface water supplies can be assessed and managed with WSPs.A little more than a decade after the formal publication of the WSP concept in 2004, WHO (2017) published a survey reporting that 93 countries in every region of the world had adopted WSPs at least to some degree of implementation.IWA sponsored another water safety conference in Narvik, Norway in June 2022 (IWA 2022).The second enlarged edition of the WHO Water Safety Plan Manual (Jackson et al. 2023) with contributions from 83 water professionals from 35 nations was

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207