MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411453897 · doi:10.1080/16549716.2025.2511351

Prevalence and burden of no-toilet households in India: an analysis of 261,746 households in 36 states/Union Territories in 2022–2023

2025· article· en· W4411453897 on OpenAlexaff
Anoop Jain, Akhil Kumar, Rockli Kim, S. V. Subramanian

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Action · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsToiletSocioeconomic statusSocioeconomicsGeographyBusinessLaggingEconomic growthEnvironmental healthEconomicsPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

India's Swachh Bharat Abhiyan was a nation-wide program aimed at providing households with toilets to eliminate open defecation. Between 2016 and 2021, millions of households gained access to a toilet. However, as of 2021, over 238 million people still did not have a toilet, and there was considerable variation in this outcome between India's states and Union Territories. We update the estimates on the number of no-toilet households in India using India's Household Consumption Expenditure Survey from 2022 to 2023. We find that 12.5% of India's households, most of which are in rural communities, still have no toilet. This amounts to over 162 million people still living without a toilet. Over 70% of those without a toilet live in just six states, and the lowest socioeconomic status households are the least likely to have a toilet. This emphasizes the need for policy makers to target states and socioeconomic groups that are lagging. Furthermore, policy makers should understand that a household's toilet status can fluctuate because of adverse climate events, such as flooding. This evidence highlights the need for accurate and up-to-date data on no-toilet households throughout India.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.338
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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health ActionSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207