MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7104038515 · doi:10.21139/wej.2025.005

Measuring progress to achieve safe drinking water for First Nations people

2025· article· W7104038515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWater e-Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousClosing (real estate)Water safetyPublic healthCommunity healthRisk assessmentOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In December 2021, the Community Infrastructure Target 9b was added to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This Target stated that First Nations’ households were to receive essential services, including “safe drinking water”, at relevant State/Territory “jurisdictional standards” by 2031. In Australia, water is considered safe if it complies with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG). We have proposed several potential jurisdictional/national target indicators, based on health risk. They are consistent with the ADWG advice that reducing acute (microbial) health risks is of higher priority than reducing chronic (chemical) risks. They also account for the severity of the risks involved and the number of people exposed to them. Their values were calculated from a Dataset for Indigenous communities derived from the most comprehensive annual data publicly available for smaller regional and remote communities. They show that there are many remote Indigenous communities that are facing acute health risks and many more facing severe chronic health risks. Non-compliant supplies were also prioritised for remediation, based on acute, then chronic, health risks to their corresponding communities.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater e-JournalSame topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207