MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038720425 · doi:10.4296/cwrj3102091

Water Market Characteristics: Results from a Survey of Southern Alberta Irrigators

2006· article· en· W2038720425 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lorraine A. Nicol, K. K. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater tradingWater rightProductivityWater conservationWater transferWater useIrrigationWater supplyBusinessLicenseFlexibility (engineering)Irrigation districtWater resource managementWater resourcesAgricultural economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Alberta the passage of the Water Act of 1999 and the Irrigation Districts Act of 2000 enabled water license holders to transfer water rights on a permanent basis and water allocations on a temporary basis, establishing the foundation for water markets. This study explores water market activity in southern Alberta, focusing on the temporary transfer of water allocations by the region's dominant water consumer: irrigators. Irrigators in the region's largest irrigation district were surveyed. It was found that the characteristics of the water market conform to characteristics of water markets elsewhere. Most notable is that the market provided flexibility to producers to manage water during times of water supply constraints and in so doing, enhanced water productivity and efficiency. However, water market activity in southern Alberta is very limited and will likely remain so under the current water management regime.

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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.157
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207