Stormwater ponds and West Nile virus: Ffrom public opinion to public policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Great progress has been made in the past twenty years in the design and management of stormwater management ponds. However, with the recent arrival of the West Nile virus to Ontario, guidelines need to be reviewed to ensure that they properly address this new threat. New policy recommendations should include remedies for both actual and perceived issues. To develop new policy to reduce actual risks, existing guidelines on mosquito control and West Nile policies were examined, and often shown to be in conflict with established guidelines regarding other functions of stormwater management including water quantity and quality control, aesthetic amenities, recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat management. A survey was administered to Brampton, Ontario residents living in close proximity to stormwater ponds to gauge the degree of concern about risks such as West Nile virus, and to evaluate the level of knowledge regarding such risks. Respondents had a fairly balanced opinion of stormwater ponds and were generally satisfied with their design and maintenance. They were aware of potential risks associated with the ponds, including the possibility of exposure to WNvirus carrying mosquitoes. However, as a new and unfamiliar phenomenon, there was still a great deal of inconsistency and uncertainty in residents' understanding of the actual risks of West Nile virus. New policy recommendations include revised design and management guidelines; developed to reduce the actual risk of exposure to West Nile virus infected mosquitoes, while addressing the potential conflicts between mosquito control objectives and other desirable benefits of stormwater management. Recommendations have also been made for public education guidelines to increase residents' understanding of the actual risks, while also improving their perceptions of the stormwater ponds.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".