MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038769164 · doi:10.1080/0964056042000243212

Groundwater protection on Long Island, New York: a study in management capacity

2004· article· en· W2038769164 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Planning and Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningWater resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental protectionEngineeringEconomicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through their powers to regulate land use and their responsibilities for public water supply, local governments are critical players in groundwater protection. Unfortunately, the demands of groundwater protection are high, and many local governments do not have the ability or capacity to develop and implement appropriate management strategies. This paper analyzes groundwater protection experiences on Long Island, New York, a place where groundwater dependence is high, and threats to groundwater are serious. Long Island's experiences highlight the need to approach capacity building for groundwater protection broadly, concentrating on factors such as political commitment and citizen support; enhancement of local technical competency through linkages and support from state and federal governments; and strengthening of institutional arrangements at all levels.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.171 · 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