Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, drinking water quality is largely under provincial jurisdiction, with the Federal Government being responsible for the First Nations and Inuit as well as trans-boundary issues. The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality set out the basic parameters that every water system (public, semi-public and private) should strive to achieve in order to provide a clean, safe and reliable drinking water supply. Because of the vast surface water resources in the country, public perception is often biased into thinking that these are sufficient. However, more than 30% of the Canadian population uses groundwater as their drinking water source. Until the recent worldwide trend in drinking bottled water, there was little interest in assessing the overall extent and quality of this resource in Canada. The advent of large bottling operations, with the associated problems in aquifer capacity and boundary issues, has changed the situation. The mapping of aquifers has been undertaken by Natural Resources Canada, whereas groundwater quality is a shared responsibility between Environment and Health Canada. A national survey of Federal contaminated sites was completed and an action plan for remediation is in place. A survey was conducted to delineate the magnitude of the threats to groundwater resources and to use the information in integrated watershed management plans.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".