MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037839383

Exploring Well Water Stewardship in Rural Ontario Communities Via a Mixed-Methods Approach: Implications For Drinking Water Consumers And Public Health Risks

2023· other· en· W7037839383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicStudy of Mite Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentSurvey data collectionStewardship (theology)Qualitative propertyPublic healthThematic analysisAgricultureLogistic regressionWater supply
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Private groundwater wells represent the primary source of household drinking water for at least 1.6 million individuals in the province of Ontario. In contrast to those who consume water from public (municipal) systems, private well users in Ontario are responsible for well water stewardship (i.e., protective actions), including source maintenance, treatment, and submitting samples for contaminant testing. Previous studies have reported low participation rates with respect to these actions, thus constituting a public health concern (e.g., contamination from agricultural run-off, septic tanks, etc.). The current thesis sought to classify private well owners in Ontario based on socio-cognitive factors, explore, and evaluate relationships between socio-cognitive factors (i.e., awareness, attitudes, perceptions, beliefs) and behaviours, and contextualize relationships between motivators and barriers to undertaking protective actions. A mixed-methods approach was employed, including a province-wide online survey (May to August 2018) and semi-structured interviews in two rural communities in southeastern Ontario (i.e., Town of Greater Napanee and Stone Mills Township) (March to June 2021). Survey data were used to quantify well owners’ awareness, perceptions, and behaviours, with two-step cluster analysis and binary logistic regression used to classify and profile the survey cohort based on cognitive factors. Thematic analysis of data from subsequent semi-structured interviews was employed to further elucidate initial quantitative results. Overall, 1140 survey respondents were included for quantitative analyses, and 40 semi-structured interviews (20 per community) were included for qualitative analyses. Survey findings illustrate that specific socio-cognitive and socio-demographic factors are significantly associated with user behaviours. Additionally, three distinct respondent clusters (i.e., socio-cognitive profiles) were identified based on two socio-cognitive factors (i.e., awareness and risk perception). Qualitative findings suggest complacency around well water quality and lack of risk perception are the main barriers to routine testing and/or treatment. Both quantitative and qualitative findings demonstrate that specific socio-cognitive and experiential factors are potential drivers of, and barriers to, undertaking protective actions, highlighting the need for tailored knowledge-translation initiatives and evidence-based tools. Results have crucial implications for risk communication and may be used to guide development of future public health interventions and stewardship tools to enhance protective actions among private well owners in Ontario and further afield.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicStudy of Mite SpeciesFrench-language works237,207