MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403621588 · doi:10.52968/28462764

Perception of Women in Water Supply and Associated Health Risks in the Use of Harvested Stored Rainwater in Enugu State, Nigeria

2022· article· en· W4403621588 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Oyilieze Akanwa, Ngozi Nneka Joe‐Ikechebelu, Fredrick Aideniosa Omoruyi, Chukwuebuka Alumuna

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œNewsorbit · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainwater harvestingPerceptionWater supplyState (computer science)Water resource managementRisk perceptionBusinessEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsGeographyEnvironmental scienceMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental engineeringEconomicsMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rainwater harvesting (RWH) has become a necessity in many Nigerian communities due to water scarcity, particularly during the dry season. This study examines the perception of women in water supply and associated health risks in the use of harvested stored rainwater in Enugu-Ezike, Enugu State. Field observation, random in-depth interviews etc., are inclusive in the qualitative methods employed in the study. Laboratory analysis of physicochemical and bacteriological parameters of stored RWH samples (hand dug well and drinking vessels) were also carried out. Findings show that rural, poor and deprived women suffered consistent water stress and shortage in dry seasons and this accounts for 84% of them being dependent on stored rainwater harvesting. Findings show that RWH stored water is unfit for drinking and has health risks with high possibilities; it causes cholera and typhoid repeatedly in children. The study also shows other ramifications of water scarcity in the case study area, including the gendered burden of fetching water and the health implications of this.

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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œNewsorbitSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207