Developing a community-based monitoring \nprogram for drinking water supplies in the \nIndian Bay Watershed: A baseline study of \nsurface water quality, contamination sources \nand resident practices and perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drinking water issues in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are closely tied to the \nhealth of watersheds and thus are relevant to residents, users, and neighboring \ncommunities of those watersheds. Because boil water advisories (BWA) and persistent \nchallenges to supplying safe drinking water in rural municipalities in Newfoundland are \ncommonplace, this project seeks to explore root causes as well as future directions related \nto these issues. More precisely, this project seeks to design community-based approaches to \nwater stewardship to supplement the supply and monitoring of drinking water as currently \ncarried out by municipalities and the provincial government. \nThis project focused on the Towns of Indian Bay and Centreville-Wareham-Trinity \n(CWT). The Town of Indian Bay has been on BWA since September 2008, largely due to \ninadequate treatment and distribution infrastructure, while the Town of CWT has \nexperienced periodic BWAs in recent years for a variety of reasons. Evidence suggests that \na significant proportion of the residents in these communities draw their primary drinking \nwater sources from outside the public supply: specifically, from natural roadside springs as \nwell as store-bought bottled water. Evidence further suggests that there is a level of distrust \nas well as distaste for publicly supplied drinking water among residents. For these reasons, \nit may be inadequate to merely “fix” infrastructural and management related issues within \nthese water systems to ensure drinking water safety and security. Public education, \noutreach, participation, and awareness are all critical factors. \nSeveral key methods were used to carry out the research. Source water sampling \nwas carried out at sites throughout the Indian Bay Watershed (the Town of Indian Bay’s \nwater supply) as well as two popular roadside springs. In addition to results that indicate \nthe presence of E. coli and therefore threats to public health, this sampling provides a \nbaseline for future water quality research and the potential to monitor changes water \nquality in the Indian Bay Watershed over time. It also provides a starting point for future \nefforts to monitor the quality of water drawn from popular natural roadside springs, a role \nthat a community-based environmental stewardship organization such as the Indian Bay \nEcosystem Corporation (IBEC) may potentially fulfill. \nA household survey seeking resident practices and perceptions towards their \ndrinking water supplies was also conducted. All households in the communities were \ncontacted for the survey and asked to provide information on household practices as well \nas practices while in the IBW. Findings from the survey confirm that a majority of \ncommunity members (55 percent) draw their water from natural roadside springs despite \nthe presence of municipal water systems, and suggest that the reasons for this relate to \ntaste, smell, and perceived safety. Concerns over drinking water safety were found to be \nboth real and perceived. Survey results demonstrate that perceptions and preferences \nmatter a great deal: distrust of public drinking water supplies has clearly led residents to \nseek alternate sources, sources that are unmonitored and may have significant added risk \n7 \nand costs. As users of the IBW, residents appeared both generally informed of, as well as \nreceptive to, regulations in the watershed as a protected water supply area. This represents a \nstrong point from which to guide future environmental education and watershed \nstewardship initiatives, although most residents indicated that they did not believe there \nwere any current threats to their drinking water and therefore may be uninformed about \npotential risks. Only 20% feel that recreational uses are cause for concern. There were no \nreported instances of drinking water-related illnesses in the community over the past year. \nThe majority of participants are, however, concerned about such illnesses. \nAs part of a commitment to a collaborative, iterative approach to community-based \nresearch and in recognition that the issues around provisioning of safe and secure drinking \nwater are complex and myriad, feedback and input was sought from a diversity of \nstakeholders, government officials, and holders of special knowledge with regards to \ndrinking water supplies within the region, the province, and elsewhere in the country. \nThrough such an approach, researchers sought to identify future drinking water quality \ninitiatives in which community participation may play a vital role. Water security, quality, \nand safety are, after all, rooted in the environments in which these communities are based.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".