MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sustainability of Tapping Ancient Groundwater

2025· article· en· W4410806430 on OpenAlexaff
Grant Ferguson, Jennifer C. McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Environment and Resources · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWater management and technologies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTappingSustainabilityGroundwaterEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceGeographyEnvironmental planningWater resource managementEcologyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fossil groundwaters make up a substantial fraction of the Earth's fresh water and are being targeted for water supply wells at increasing rates. These groundwaters were recharged more than 12,000 years ago, often in climate conditions that were much different from those of today. Because of the long renewal times involved, fossil groundwaters have often been classified as nonrenewable. However, groundwater ages provide little insight into how water levels and fluxes will change as the result of pumping. The relationship between groundwater ages and these outcome-based metrics of renewability is not straightforward. Therefore, whether a groundwater is fossil or not may have little to do with its renewability. The hydraulic response of an aquifer system to pumping is not strongly related to groundwater age. The use of both modern and fossil groundwater can be unsustainable.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Environment and ResourcesSame topicWater management and technologiesFrench-language works237,207