Resolving Water-use Conflicts: Insights from the Prairie Experience for the MacKenzie River Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The southern regions of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan suffer from periodic drought more than any other part of Canada. They depend heavily on rivers that rise in the Rocky Mountains and traverse all three provinces to their outlet on Hudson Bay. In 1969, after a prolonged period of disagreement between Alberta and Saskatchewan over conflicting priorities for the use of prairie rivers, the two provinces joined with the governments of Manitoba and Canada to enter into an arrangement known as the Apportionment Agreement. The Agreement was based on the broad principle that each upstream province would allow one-half of the natural flow of the rivers to pass to its downstream neighbours. But much has changed since 1969: A warming climate, a growing population and an expanding economy, particularly in Alberta, has focused increased attention on the water resources of the prairies and demands an examination of how the Agreement works today.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".