Unresolved Issues and Management Problems in the Canadian Water Export Debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we examine three unresolved issues surrounding the Canadian water export debate: the pressures behind export proposals, pricing structures and related features, and the role of environmental impact assessment (EIA). The pressures behind export proposals involve a myth of Canadian water abundance, supply and exportable surplus, the perceived marketability of Canadian water and the view that other countries need to augment their existing water supplies.In this paper we establish criteria for evaluating the merits of an export proposal: demonstration that a surplus of water is available for export, the completion of an EIA in Canada and the importing country, an adequate pricing system that produces benefits for the exporting basin, a complete market analysis, and a credible business plan. Any water export proposal must take into account the full costs and the type of pricing structure to be employed in the contract. With full cost accounting applied to the price of Canadian water, demand will remain small and larger diversion proposals will remain uneconomical compared with alternatives. With export proposals raising major scientific and technical questions, the benefits of an EIA are invaluable to governments and proponents. An EIA should address the following questions. Is there an exportable surplus that can be removed without causing unacceptable environmental, socio-economic and cumulative impacts? Will water transported between basins have an unacceptable negative impact on ecosystems, including instream flow in the donor basin and the transfer of exotic species? We conclude that a water export proposal could meet the stated criteria and obtain approval, provide benefits to Canada and the local exporting communities, without incurring unacceptable environmental and socio-economic impacts.
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 | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".