MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2251174492

Source Water Protection for Nonmetropolitan Drinking Water Operators in British Columbia, Canada

2008· article· en· W2251174492 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert Patrick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionWater sourceAgricultureGeographyResource (disambiguation)Environmental protectionWater resource managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceArchaeologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study research has been conducted in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley. Situated in the southern interior of the province, the Okanagan Valley has experienced rapid expansion in agriculture and other resource activities as well as significant population growth since the mid-1900s. In response to new provincial drinking water regulations, local water operators in the Okanagan Valley have attempted to direct greater attention to drinking water source protection, the first barrier in the multi-barrier approach to clean drinking water. This paper examines constraints to source water protection from the perspective of nonmetropolitan drinking water operators. The results of this research indicate that many factors operate beyond the jurisdiction of local water operators in the Okanagan to constrain their ability to undertake effective source water protection. These results are not geographically unique to the Okanagan region but are representative of other nonmetropolitan areas throughout British Columbia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207