Transboundary aquifers along the Canada–USA border: Science, policy and social issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada–USA border. Since 2005, Canada has followed international developments in transboundary groundwater issues in cooperation with its southern neighbor the United States (USA) within the Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management Initiative (ISARM) of UNESCO. As a result, 10 Transboundary Aquifer Systems (TAS) were identified along the border between Canada and the USA. This study is an extensive review of the current state of the 10 TAS. Documentation of scientifically-based knowledge on TAS is an important step in identifying potential issues in policies that might be adopted to address shared water-resource issues. This analysis emphasizes the need for more scientific data, widespread education and training, and a more clearly defined governments’ role to manage groundwater at the international level. The study reviews the current legal framework and summarises the current scientific knowledge for the TAS with respect to the hydrologic and geologic framework as well as some of the major drivers for supply and demand. It also describes the links, approach and relevance of studies on the TAS to the UN Law of Transboundary Aquifers and on how these might fit in the regional strategy for the assessment and management of the TAS. Clear communication, shared knowledge and common objectives in the management of TAS will prepare the countries for future negotiations and cooperative binational programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".