MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976799475 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12292913

Current practices in private water well management in Rural Central Alberta

2020· article· en· W6976799475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualityBottled waterAgriculturePurchasingShock (circulatory)Water useFarm waterCurrent (fluid)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 238,000 to 450,000 Albertans rely on private water wells for their water needs. In Canada, private well owners are responsible for monitoring and maintaining the quality of their water well, yet studies in Alberta indicate that owners do not undertake regular well maintenance or testing. This survey obtained information regarding farming and water well management practices, and drinking water preferences among private well owners in central Alberta. Questionnaires, water samples and drilling report information collected from 97 respondents between March 2015 and June 2017 were evaluated. Total coliforms were present (TC+) in 20/97 samples. There were no significant associations between well design and construction characteristics and the presence of TC+. Twenty-four and 20 respondents reported undertaking annual bacterial and chemical testing, respectively. Twenty-five respondents indicated their well had been shock chlorinated within the past three years. Concern about contamination (n = 28) was not significantly associated with increased frequency of water quality testing, well maintenance with shock chlorination, or purchasing of bottled water as an alternative drinking water. There has been little change since 2010 in the uptake of free water testing provided by Alberta Health Services. The organoleptic properties of water reported by respondents indicated shock chlorination might benefit a number of premises. Poultry producers are more likely to test their well water for bacterial and chemical contamination on an annual basis due to mandatory requirements stipulated by the poultry industry. There may be potential for a similar mandatory water testing guideline to be implemented for beef producers in Alberta. There is a need for education programs targeting rural well owners. The Working Well program information packages provided by the Government of Alberta provide an excellent source of information for water well owners. This survey indicates that new ways to disseminate this information to a broader audience are required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207