The Case for Groundwater Protection in Ontario ii Executive Summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Workshop authorized by the Walkerton Inquiry was held at the University of Waterloo on May 1, 2001, to address the issue of groundwater protection in Ontario. The Workshop attendees included renowned experts from groundwater science, agriculture, municipal water management and planning, watershed management, the legal profession, and the environmental movement. The primary objective of the Workshop was to consider the case for standards and policy for groundwater protection in Ontario by examining the state of technical knowledge and information that is needed as a basis for a legislative initiative: Do we have enough knowledge and information to give our groundwater resource an effective legal protection? This focal question was recast into a number of key questions that were addressed and answered. The Workshop did not consider the exact form of the legislation that would be needed for effective groundwater protection, that aspect being beyond the scope of the Workshop. A secondary objective was to develop a Draft Table of Contents for a document on Standards and Policy for Groundwater Protection in the Province of Ontario. Several invited experts gave presentations on the significance of groundwater protection, the state of groundwater protection in other countries, the groundwater protection and management
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".