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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".