Pinning down demand for groundwater geoscience: from narratives to numbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous people require fit-for-purpose groundwater-surface water data to help First Nations strengthen the federal legislation governing the requirements of safe drinking water for First Nations On-Reserve. Prior to the 2009-2011 National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems, there was no nationally representative data on First Nations On Reserve groundwater geoscience. Currently, this rudimentary baseline report suggests that 158 water systems serve 115 Ontario First Nations. Within this, there are 94 surface water systems, 39 groundwater systems and 13 groundwater-under-the-direct-influence-of-surface-water systems. Ironically, the application of Province of Ontario regulations (such as the Provincial Policy Statement) to Reserve lands are viewed as best practice. Federal government water system policy and practice is not regulated and enforced. Rather, it is also viewed as best practice. This fragmented jurisdiction issue has direct implications to First Nations (FN) On-Reserve who rely on informal water management systems. Against this backdrop, FN must compete for special project, private or charitable funding sources to generate the science required to protect their drinking water sources. This study has a twofold intent: a) determine how publically funded geoscience providers could meet the groundwater geoscience information needs of 27 First Nations (FN) in Ontario Source Protection Regions; and, b) work with FN stakeholders to refine direction for future funding decisions that may protect raw water sources from threats to water and wastewater systems. Methods used included secondary data analysis, interviews with stakeholders (email, telephone and face to face) and focus groups, case study of water security service delivery review, and review of academic articles and primary documents (FN task forces, workshop and symposium reports). Factors examined included: Five different schools of thought around Ontario source water protection (SWP) planning; the competition and concentration trends within the Southern Ontario source water protection plan (SWP) industry. Progressively deepening communication gaps between well funded geoscience providers and Ontario First Nations South of 60 (who have pressing SWP geoscience information needs that are unique to First Nations On-Reserve rather than urban Canadians. Currently - 74 First Nations' On-Reserve live with boil advisory alert, and 7 First Nations live with do not drink advisories). Unfortunately First Nations On-Reserve within Ontario Source Protection Regions have not been working closely with geoscience providers (i.e. 36 Regional Conservation Authorities mandated to develop watershed SWP in 19 Source Protection Regions). This preliminary report provides some direction for future groundwater/source water research, education and outreach with Indigenous people in Canada. According to our project First Nations' On-Reserve Source Water Protection in Ontario Source Protection Regions there is an emerging need for geoscientists to: a) work with Indigenous technical services; b) to speak and understand an Indigenous language; and c) to grow the Indigenous capacity to interpret and apply aquifer-groundwater-surface water data. Encouraging Indigenous people's participation in groundwater geoscience is an opportunity that federal, provincial and municipal institutions should grasp. Building such efforts may provide 27 First Nations in Ontario Source Protection Regions with future On-Reserve-context-specific aquifer-groundwater-surface water data integration and risk analysis.
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) | 0.001 | 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".