Digitalizing sewage: The politics of producing, sharing, and operationalizing data from wastewater-based surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, Wastewater-Based Surveillance (WBS) is now heralded by scientists and policy makers alike as the future of monitoring and governing urban health. The expansion of WBS reflects larger neoliberal governance trends whereby digitalizing states increasingly rely on producing big data as a ‘best practice’ to surveil various aspects of everyday life. With a focus on three South Asian cities, our paper investigates the transnational pathways through which WBS data is produced, made known, and operationalized in ‘evidence-based’ decision-making in a time of crisis. We argue that in South Asia, wastewater surveillance data is actively produced through fragile but power-laden networks of transnational and local knowledge, funding, and practices. Using mixed qualitative methods, we found these networks produced artifacts like dashboards to communicate data to the public in ways that enabled claims to objectivity, ethical interventions, and transparency. Interrogating these representations, we demonstrate how these artifacts open up messy spaces of translation that trouble linear notions of objective data informing accountable, transparent, and evidence-based decision-making for diverse urban actors. By thinking through the production of precarious biosurveillance infrastructures, we respond to calls for more robust ethical and legal frameworks for the field and suggest that the fragility of WBS infrastructures has important implications for the long-term trajectories of urban public health governance in the global South.
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 | 0.052 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".