Risk perceptions and behaviours of recreational water users in Canada toward cyanobacteria blooms in freshwater beaches: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyanobacteria are a group of photosynthetic bacteria, some of which produce toxins that can pose health risks to humans and animals. However, there are gaps in understanding the potential exposure risks associated with cyanobacteria and the public's response to these risks. Research on this topic is lacking in Canada, and this study aims to examine the risk perception and behaviour of recreational water users in relation to cyanobacteria in freshwater bodies. We conducted a qualitative study, holding six focus groups in three different locations across Canada (two per site): Western Canada, Ontario, and Quebec. The participants included parents of children 15 or younger and dog owners. All conversations were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized. Two team members independently analyzed all transcripts, developed a coding scheme, and compiled the coded text for thematic analysis. We organized and interpreted the results within the context of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Three overarching themes were generated from nine TDF domains and three inductively produced constructs: (1) Children and dogs enjoy water contact activities, with parents and dog owners being unconcerned about their water exposure; (2) Cyanobacteria blooms and their potential health risks are a new and unrecognized issue for most parents and dog owners; and (3) Personal, environmental, and social constructs are influencers of precautionary actions of recreational water users. This study found that children and dogs could possibly come into contact with water containing cyanobacteria blooms, despite the reluctance of parents and dog owners to acknowledge the potential health consequences. Most parents and dog owners lack knowledge about cyanobacteria and its associated health risks. The issue is further complicated by the optimism inherent in decision-making processes related to engaging in beach activities and other reinforcing factors and environmental circumstances. The findings suggest a need to increase awareness of cyanobacteria in beach water and promote safer behaviours among beachgoers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".