Bibliographic record
Abstract
An ideal l egal regime for the governance of water quality would include the following: clear and enforceable obligations on the part of government for the provision of clean water; citizens’ rights to the supply of such water; and an ecologically sound approach to the protection of water quality. In Canada, water law has none of t hese things. Instead, it has at l east seven flaws: (1) citizens have no legal right to clean drinking water, and government liability for failing to p rovide c lean water is limited; (2) governments are e ither r eluctant or unable to strictly enforce environmental standards; (3) water management is characterized b y an un clear and complex division o f powers and responsibilities distributed a mong three levels of government; (4) water quality is controlled b y government, arguably the worst polluter in the country; (5) standards for drinking water are not based upon the precautionary principle; (6) water laws do not protect ecological units s uch a s ecosystems or watersheds; (7) the approach to water management i s predominantly remedial, not preventative. This article proposes three steps to mitigate the flaws in Canada’s water laws. The first is the creation of the right of private persons to require provincial governments to p rovide drinking water to p rescribed standards. The second is the development of drinking water s tandards that are based upo n the precautionary principle ‐ standards that prohibit all contaminants except t hose specifically identified. The third is the separation o f t he function o f developing standards from that of achieving them. These three c hanges would vastly improve the quality and dependability of drinking water in Canada. * Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, Kingston. This article is based on a presentation given at the First International Conference on Water and Health, Towards a New Frontier in the Protection
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".