MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113302186

Patterns of Water: The water related practices of households in southern England, and their influence on water consumption and demand management

2013· report· en· W7113302186 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester) · 2013
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of OxfordLoughborough UniversityDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of LeedsUniversity of Essex
KeywordsUnit (ring theory)Water consumptionWater useConsumption (sociology)Construct (python library)Diversity (politics)Survey data collectionDescriptive statisticsEveryday life
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report contains the findings of survey research on the patterns of water using practices in households across the South and South East of England. Following a ‘practice based’ approach to water demand, this research takes practices as the unit of analysis when exploring water use – rather than attitudes, behaviours or simply ‘litres used’ – and highlights how this changed unit of analysis allows for a deeper understanding of the routines and habits of everyday life that lead to domestic water consumption – washing and personal hygiene, doing the laundry, gardening, cooking etc. Based on an 1800 person survey across the south and south east of England, and a range of descriptive and cluster analysis, this research highlights the diversity of dynamics shaping domestic water demand in the UK and may help bring new insights into how to construct interventions, and into the future trajectories of different practices and levels of water consumption.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester)Same topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207