Understanding Ontario's capital investment in numerical modelling under the source protection program: 2005-2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tragic contamination of Walkerton's water supply in May 2000, and the resulting inquiry by Justice Dennis O'Connor, saw the Province of Ontario begin the long process of properly addressing drinking water security and sustainable water resources management. In May 2002, exactly two years after the Walkerton tragedy, Justice O'Connor released his second, and final, inquiry report making 22 recommendations to the province for Source Water Protection. The intervening years from 2002 to 2005 saw intense activity from hundreds of people in the coordination of an Advisory Committee on Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning, a White Paper on Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning, a Technical Experts Committee and an Implementation Committee. These high-level committees within the province, and their resulting reports, became the foundation on which the Source Water Protection Program and Clean Water Act were designed. In early 2005, the first in a series of multi-million dollar agreements was signed to begin building and implementing the Source Water Protection Program. Within the broader Source Water Protection Program the need for a water quantity risk assessment framework was recognized and in this way the Water Budget Program was initiated. Although it was not well understood at the time, the Water Budget Program would go on to become a major provincial driver of Water Quantity Policy, Science and Information over the coming decade, overseeing rigorous technical assessment, model development, peer review and reporting. This presentation highlights the first ten years of numerical model development within the Water Budget Program and offers insights into accomplishments and potential opportunities for improvement going forward.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".