MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969001240 · doi:10.4296/cwrj2601017

Agricultural Water Use in Ontario

2001· article· en· W1969001240 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rob de Loë, Reid Kreutzwiser, Janet Ivey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureWater useEnvironmental scienceWater resource managementGeographyAgronomyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agricultural water use is an important component of total water use in Ontario. While the amount of water withdrawn for agricultural use is considerably lower than for municipalities and thermal power generation, agricultural water consumption is exceeded only by consumption in the municipal and manufacturing sectors. Using 1996 Census of Agriculture data, this paper updates the estimates of agricultural water use created for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food by Ecologistics Limited in 1993. In 1996, all agricultural sectors in Ontario were estimated to use 173.2 million m3. Spatial patterns of water use for southern Ontario, where most agriculture occurs, are mapped for water use for all sectors; for five major subcategories: livestock, fruit, vegetable, field and speciality crops; and for irrigation. Significant variation occurs: e.g., most agricultural water use is concentrated in the southwestern region where water demand from municipalities, golf courses, and other water users is high. Future water allocation decisions must take account of the distribution of agricultural water withdrawals, especially those for irrigation, which are strongly seasonal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.155 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207