MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410765775 · doi:10.32920/29161043

‘Contaminants of emerging concern’ in wastewater: Are current analytical technologies, policy development and industry guidelines enough to protect human and ecological health?

2025· preprint· en· W4410765775 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patricia Hania, Kimberley Gilbride, Rania Hamza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHuman healthEnvironmental planningBusinessCurrent (fluid)WastewaterEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental healthEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The presence of 'contaminants of emerging concern' (CEC) in water sources is a well-documented phenomenon. The term CEC is broadly defined as compounds present in water sources that are not monitored or regulated currently. Research has shown that CEC discharged from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are present in downstream freshwater sources, which are relied upon for drinking water and fish habitat. However, the lack of a CEC regulatory framework for WWTPs combined with the narrow characterization of CEC as discrete chemicals without understanding the cumulative and synergistic impacts of these chemicals upon human and ecological health has resulted in a knowledge gap. Consequently, CEC scientific knowledge has not yet been translated to support the development of evidence-based decision-making tools and legal regulations that could protect freshwater sources, ecosystems, and human health, and be relied upon by municipalities and First Nations that are charged with operating WWTPs.</p>

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)0.001
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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207