Ontario farm groundwater quality survey - Summer 1992
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to growing concerns related to land-use and development, and the subsequent impacts on groundwater quality, Agriculture Canada initiated a major effort to evaluate the condition of the groundwater resources used by the rural community for drinking water supplies. One of the main motivations for the study was the international awareness of the potential impacts that agricultural activity may have on shallow groundwater quality. Some research work has been completed and more is currently underway in many parts of Canada, the United States, and Europe, to gauge the current and potential impacts of intensive agricultural development on surface and groundwater resources. An initial survey of approximately 1300 domestic farm wells and about 150 multilevel monitoring wells located in active farm fields was conducted during the winter months of 1991-1992 as the first part of Agriculture Canada's study. The main objectives of this initial survey were to: determine the quality and safety of drinking water for farm families, and determine the effect of agricultural management on the quality of groundwater. A second complete survey of the same network of water wells and monitoring wells was carried out during the summer months of 1992. The main objectives of the second survey were to: verify the conditions and trends observed in the first sampling program and enhance the statistical validity of the data set and, examine the influence of seasonal change, both climatic and related to specific agricultural activity, on the quality of groundwater.In this report, the results from the summer sampling are presented and evaluated with respect to spatial distribution, land-use practices, soil characteristics, and several additional factors. Recent surveys published or made available recently and not reviewed in the winter survey report, are included here for background information.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".