Water Conservation and Development Projects in Saskatchewan: An Economic Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In parts of Saskatchewan, with higher levels of precipitation, waterlogging is a common problem, which has been recognized by Saskatchewan policy-makers by passing the Saskatchewan Conservation and Development Act in 1949. Projects under this Act are supported by both public and private funds. An evaluation of these projects is needed to show their effectiveness both to policy-makers and to the public at large. Such analysis should encompass both social and private impacts resulting from these projects. Ten water control projects were examined in this study, involving three types of activities: agricultural drainage, flood control along with agricultural drainage, and backflood irrigation using water from agricultural drainage. Economic evaluation included both economic efficiency analysis and regional development benefits. All ten projects passed the economic efficiency test, since the benefit-cost ratio ranged from 1.3 to 4.4. All projects also created regional development benefits, since these projects contributed on average in the local region 10.74 times the income for every dollar invested. Some projects created environmental issues, but such impacts were not included in this study because of lack of data. In general, projects that provided benefits beyond the dryland agricultural activities (flood control and backflood irrigation) were found to be superior on both economic efficiency and regional development benefits criteria.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".