Pinning down demand for groundwater geoscience: from narratives to numbers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Indigenous people require fit-for-purpose groundwater-surface water data to help First Nations strengthen the federal legislation governing the requirements of safe drinking water for First Nations On-Reserve. Prior to the 2009-2011 National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems, there was no nationally representative data on First Nations On Reserve groundwater geoscience. Currently, this rudimentary baseline report suggests that 158 water systems serve 115 Ontario First Nations. Within this, there are 94 surface water systems, 39 groundwater systems and 13 groundwater-under-the-direct-influence-of-surface-water systems. Ironically, the application of Province of Ontario regulations (such as the Provincial Policy Statement) to Reserve lands are viewed as best practice. Federal government water system policy and practice is not regulated and enforced. Rather, it is also viewed as best practice. This fragmented jurisdiction issue has direct implications to First Nations (FN) On-Reserve who rely on informal water management systems. Against this backdrop, FN must compete for special project, private or charitable funding sources to generate the science required to protect their drinking water sources. This study has a twofold intent: a) determine how publically funded geoscience providers could meet the groundwater geoscience information needs of 27 First Nations (FN) in Ontario Source Protection Regions; and, b) work with FN stakeholders to refine direction for future funding decisions that may protect raw water sources from threats to water and wastewater systems. Methods used included secondary data analysis, interviews with stakeholders (email, telephone and face to face) and focus groups, case study of water security service delivery review, and review of academic articles and primary documents (FN task forces, workshop and symposium reports). Factors examined included: Five different schools of thought around Ontario source water protection (SWP) planning; the competition and concentration trends within the Southern Ontario source water protection plan (SWP) industry. Progressively deepening communication gaps between well funded geoscience providers and Ontario First Nations South of 60 (who have pressing SWP geoscience information needs that are unique to First Nations On-Reserve rather than urban Canadians. Currently - 74 First Nations' On-Reserve live with boil advisory alert, and 7 First Nations live with do not drink advisories). Unfortunately First Nations On-Reserve within Ontario Source Protection Regions have not been working closely with geoscience providers (i.e. 36 Regional Conservation Authorities mandated to develop watershed SWP in 19 Source Protection Regions). This preliminary report provides some direction for future groundwater/source water research, education and outreach with Indigenous people in Canada. According to our project First Nations' On-Reserve Source Water Protection in Ontario Source Protection Regions there is an emerging need for geoscientists to: a) work with Indigenous technical services; b) to speak and understand an Indigenous language; and c) to grow the Indigenous capacity to interpret and apply aquifer-groundwater-surface water data. Encouraging Indigenous people's participation in groundwater geoscience is an opportunity that federal, provincial and municipal institutions should grasp. Building such efforts may provide 27 First Nations in Ontario Source Protection Regions with future On-Reserve-context-specific aquifer-groundwater-surface water data integration and risk analysis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».