MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115941313 · doi:10.3886/e240979v5

Household Water Insecurity Experiences Scale Development Data

2025· dataset· en· W7115941313 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitute on Governance
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsScale (ratio)Food insecurityExperiential learningSurvey data collectionShameData collectionWater developmentWater use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE) Scale Development Project was a multi-sited research effort designed to develop and validate a scale for comparably measuring household water insecurity – the inability to reliably access sufficient water for basic domestic needs – across diverse social, cultural, and ecological contexts (https://www.wisescales.org). Between 2017 and 2018, cross-sectional surveys were implemented in multiple low- and middle-income country settings that were purposively selected to capture variation in geography, climate, urbanicity, water infrastructure, and types of water-related challenges, including scarcity, intermittency, flooding, and poor water quality. <br><br>At each study site, adult respondents who identified themselves as knowledgeable about household water acquisition and use completed a structured survey administered by trained local enumerators in participants’ preferred languages. The core component of the survey consisted of items assessing the frequency of household water insecurity experiences over the prior four weeks. Additional survey modules collected information on household sociodemographic characteristics, water sources and acquisition practices, water storage and use, and related conditions, including household food insecurity and perceived stress. <br><br>During the course of data collection, participant responses and cognitive interviews informed revisions to some experiential survey items, resulting in two versions of the instrument, referred to as HWISE 1.0 and HWISE 2.0 implementation sites. Most experiential items are comparable across these versions; however, HWISE 2.0 sites included an additional item related to shame that was not administered in HWISE 1.0 sites but was subsequently retained in the finalized scale. <br><br>The data deposited here include aggregated survey data from a subset of participating study sites, including 21 of the 28 sites included in the final scale development paper, as well as Bangladesh, a site that participated in the project but contributed data after completion of the primary scale validation analyses. Aggregated measures include three sociodemographic characteristics – participant gender, participant age, and household size – and responses to the experiential water insecurity items that comprise the finalized 12-item HWISE Scale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 venueLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineFrench-language works237,207