Understanding disputes around environmental flows: the role of ecosystem services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<abstract> <bold>Abstract.</bold> The impacts of modification of river flows on aquatic and riparian ecology are widely acknowledged. For example, reduced flows caused by water abstraction or retention of water behind dams lead to reduced abundance and diversity of native fish species. The resulting ecosystem degradation is linked to deterioration of ecosystem services, such as fisheries, water purification, and aesthetic value. Many of Canadaâs rivers have been modified by dams, abstractions, and inter-basin diversions, causing, for example, wetland loss, reduced biodiversity and poorer water quality in Lake Ontario and many other places. While methods of determining flows needed to maintain freshwater and floodplain ecosystems (âenvironmental flowsâ) have been extensively debated, progress in implementing the environmental flow requirements has been limited. Often this is due to stakeholder opposition arising from the perception that human and ecosystem requirements are in direct conflict. The concept of ecosystem services may be useful for emphasising the benefits of ecosystem protection for human wellbeing. Future research will analyse how environmental flow policies are perceived by a range of stakeholders, with particular attention to the value they give to the ecosystem services provided by the policy. In particular, how different stakeholdersâ perceptions affect opposition to or support for the policy will be analysed, and potential common ground between opposing parties will be identified.
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 | 0.000 | 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".