Groundwater resource management in the Grand River Watershed: community engagement and making the most of our water budget tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, four Tier 3 water budget studies have been initiated within the Grand River Watershed through the provincial Source Protection Program. Study areas include the Region of Waterloo, City of Guelph and Township of Guelph/Eramosa (Guelph-Guelph/Eramosa Tier 3), Whitemans Creek subwatershed, and most recently the Township of Centre Wellington. The goal of each Tier 3 study has been to evaluate the long term sustainability of the municipalities' aquifers. In each study, numerical groundwater flow models have been developed and applied to assess how water levels in municipal wells will change under various current and future conditions such as changes in land use development, current and future increases in municipal water takings, and long term drought conditions. In addition to the Tier 3 objectives outlined above, each of the four Tier 3 studies have been leveraged beyond their original purpose to support additional projects, such as the development of municipal Long Term Water Supply Master Plans and climate change adaptation planning. In the case of the Township of Centre Wellington and Guelph-Guelph/Eramosa Tier 3 studies, a component new to the Tier 3 process has been introduced - early community engagement through the development of community liaison groups. These groups have been implemented to bring engaged residents and stakeholders into the technical portion of the Tier 3 studies as they develop, and into subsequent water quantity policy development. This presentation provides an overview of how each of the Tier 3 water budget studies within the Grand River Watershed have provided water budget tools, in the form of groundwater flow models, to municipalities for use beyond the Tier 3 assessment, and the evolvement of the Tier 3 process to include community engagement.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".