MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099183240

Ministry of Environment Lower Mainland Region

2008· article· en· W7099183240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArsenicArsenic contamination of groundwaterChristian ministryWater qualityWater supplyPublic healthSurface waterArsenic poisoningHealth risk
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

provide a greater understanding of the extent, concentrations and possible sources of arsenic in drinking water from private wells in the White Rock-Surrey-Langley area. Elevated arsenic levels have been reported in a number of locations in B.C. in the past few years, and because arsenic is a carcinogen that can cause cancers and other chronic health effects over a lifetime of ingestion, it has become a source of increased concern. Health Canada recently reduced the maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) for arsenic from 0.025 to 0.010 mg/L, based on municipal and residential scale treatment achievability and a consideration of the health effects (2006 Guideline for Canadian Drinking Water Quality – GCDWQ). Chronic health effects may be observed after long-term ingestion of lower levels of arsenic in drinking water (Wang and Mulligan, 2006). Health Canada considers arsenic concentrations below 0.0003 mg/L to have essentially negligible1 risk of health effects over a lifetime of exposure. However, arsenic concentrations above 0.0003 mg/L in surface and groundwater wells are recorded in BC, Canada and globally, in natural and untreated spring water. The aim of the project was to determine the spatial extent of arsenic concentrations in

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.148 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and BiodiversityFrench-language works237,207