Groundwater recharge trends in CanadaGeological Survey of Canada Contribution 20090009.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groundwater plays a major role in social and economic development and in human and ecosystem health. However, little is known about the potential impacts of climate change on this resource in Canada, namely if groundwater recharge is increasing or decreasing over time. This paper focuses on trend statistical analysis of historical series of baseflow and groundwater levels and their field significance as indicators of recharge. Monitoring wells are mainly located in the southern half of western Canada, where few gauging stations either are available or provide significant trends. Both data sets are thus complementary. Results show that most available groundwater level series have significant trends (80%), whereas most available baseflow series have not (3%–33%). However, groundwater level series usually show smaller slope magnitudes than baseflow series. Mixed trends are often observed across Canada for a given variable, period, or series length, although some regions can have marked trends. For instance, values below the 55°N latitude, and especially values in Atlantic Canada, show mostly downward trends (decreasing recharge). Values north of the 55° parallel often show upward trends. All groundwater level results are field significant at the 10% level, versus only 35% for baseflow results, but they show mixed results. Baseflow values show a majority of downward trends for annual values and the summer period for 40- and 50-year series, thus showing field significance, whereas mixed results are observed for 30-year series and the spring, fall, and winter seasons.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".