Measures of sustainability and their utilization in practical water management planning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than 10 years, sustainable development of water resources has been discussed and debated by experts in the field. Although the concept and ideals of sustainable water resources development are well accepted, bridging the gap between theory and practice has been more difficult. One of the main issues has been the measurement of relative sustainability. While some methods have been proposed for incorporating sustainability into the water resources planning process, few have been tested in a practical setting. This paper is based on the research that examined three sustainability criteria: reversibility, risk and equity in the context of groundwater use in the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer (ADA) region, Manitoba, Canada. The criteria were used to evaluate three separate policy structures that could be used to manage the aquiier. The data were collected from different sources (government, industry, stakeholder preferences and expert opinion). A complete understanding of the sustainability of groundwater use in the ADA requires a multiple-criteria decision-making process that includes the results of the three sustainability criteria and traditional decision-making tools such as benefit-cost analysis and environmental assessment. Recommendations for improving the sustainability criteria include refinement of the tools used to collect the data for the risk criteria, further development of the proportionality-and need-based aspects of the equity criteria and further work into the issue of expert opinion. Recommendations for the future management of the ADA include investigation of modifications to the Water Rights Act and continued consultation of stakeholders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".