MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981566205 · doi:10.4095/299772

Implementing drinking water source protection - conservation authority perspective

2017· report· en· W2981566205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dianne Ford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)BusinessWater sourceEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningWater resource managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drinking water source protection began in Ontario in response to the Walkerton tragedy in May 2000, when seven died and thousands became ill from drinking municipal water contaminated with E. coli and Campylobacter bacteria. The public inquiry that followed recommended a multi-barrier approach to protect drinking water from source to tap. In response, the province passed the Clean Water Act in 2006 as the first barrier. The intent of this new legislation was to protect the sources of drinking water before it enters municipal water systems. Scientists across the province were tasked with developing Assessment Reports to characterize the quality and quantity of drinking water resources. In addition, these reports documented the human and ecological features, mapped areas vulnerable to impacts from human activities, and enumerated significant drinking water threats. The technical work included integrated mapping of surface and subsurface features, groundwater / surface water modelling, contaminant transport, capture zone analysis for municipal wells, and enumeration of significant drinking water threats. At Toronto and Region Conservation, 456 significant drinking water threats were identified with respect to municipal wells, and locally developed policies were developed to eliminate or manage these threats. The source protection policies were developed into a Source Protection Plan by scientists, engineers, and planners who worked in partnership with a local Source Protection Committee. Each of the 19 committees across the province included a mix of municipal appointees, industry representatives, and watershed residents. The policies for the jurisdiction of Toronto and Region Conservation took effect December 31, 2015. These policies are based on science, and yet recognize the existing fabric of land development and the effects of human activities on the landscape. We have met the challenges of implementation of new policy tools by a variety of government agencies by ensuring rigorous public consultation, inter-agency meetings, and provincial oversight.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater resources management and optimization→French-language works237,207→