Ontario farm groundwater quality survey - Winter 1991/92
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing awareness of the need for careful management of land use and land development has grown over the last decade, particularly in context with environmental sensitivity. One area that has received considerable attention recently is agriculture and related activities. In terms of total area, the land that has been developed and managed for agriculture represents, by far, the largest of all land-development practices. The global concern with the long-term quality of groundwater resources has, in part, begun to focus on the potential impacts of agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides and fertilizers, on regional groundwater quality. Currently, investigative research is being conducted in many parts of the world, including Canada and the United States. In an effort to begin to gauge the general condition of groundwater resources being used by the rural farming community in the Province of Ontario, Agriculture Canada, through the Canada/Ontario Environmental Sustainability Initiative Agreement (ESIA), proposed a province-wide survey of farm drinking water wells. The main objectives of the project were to: determine the quality and safety of drinking water for farm families, and determine the effect of agriculture management on the quality of groundwater. In this report, the results of the survey are presented and evaluated with respect to agricultural land use practices, soil types and water well conditions, among other factors. In addition, a review of previous surveys of this type is provided as background information. The criteria used to select both the water well sites and the multilevel well sites are discussed in \ndetail along with sampling procedures and laboratory analytical methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".