Conflicts, costs and environmental degradation – impacts of antiquated ground water allocation policies in the Great Lakes Basin
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground water is a source of drinking water for many people and is the primary source for irrigation and livestock watering in the Great Lakes region. The use of ground water in the Great Lakes Basin has substantially increased in the past few decades due to population growth, technological innovation, agricultural development and inefficient water use. Despite the increase in demand, there have been no significant changes in the ground water allocation policies in either Canada or the United States since the nineteenth century. Six of the ten jurisdictions of the Great Lakes Basin still rely on archaic common law principles to determine the allocation of ground water, while Ontario's water taking permit program has shown that centralized government regulation can be equally ineffective. Therefore, the courts and governments of the Great Lakes Basin are effectively encouraging unrestricted withdrawals of ground water, and as a result, water tables are declining, well interference incidents are increasing and ground water divides are shifting. These physical effects are giving rise to economic costs, social conflicts and environmental degradation. To mitigate the impacts of antiquated ground water allocation policies in the Great Lakes Basin, the authors suggest institutional change and a range of legal tools to better protect this critically important resource.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it