Historical temporal trends in groundwater levels from British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A time trend study of groundwater monitoring well levels was conducted in British Columbia, Canada. Trend data was available for a total of 210 groundwater monitoring well stations throughout the province with end-of-month water levels over the period of record. Significant temporal trends in groundwater levels were found at 67 stations (40.4% of all stations amenable to statistical examination, and 31.9% of all available stations). Of these 67 stations, 10 had increasing groundwater level trends and the remaining 57 had declining groundwater level trends. Thus, 34.3% of stations with a sufficiently long time series for analysis displayed declining groundwater level trends, while 6.0% have increasing trends, and 59.6% of these stations appear to have no significant temporal variation in groundwater levels. Geographic distinctions in groundwater level time trends are difficult to make owing to the unbalanced distribution of monitoring sites throughout the province. Based on percentages of total stations with a sufficiently long monitoring record for statistical analysis, it appears that the semi-arid Thompson/Nicola and Okanagan zones of British Columbia are most likely to have declining groundwater levels. Overall, a substantial proportion of groundwater monitoring wells in British Columbia - which have been operated with varying record lengths dating from recent installations to sites with records back to the 1950s - are exhibiting declining levels. At a significant number of other sites in the monitoring network, records are too short and/or poorly populated to facilitate statistical analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".