Bibliographic record
Abstract
the fatal contamination of municipal water wells in Walkerton, Ontario the provincial government plans to protect source water in all watersheds (Fig. 1). The priority is to control land use and to engineer current well-head and stream/lake intake areas using a multi-barrier approach under the precautionary principle. A Technical Experts Committee (TEC, 2004) identified several guiding principles for carrying out source water protection (SWP): • adopt a watershed-based approach (while addressing extra-watershed implications) • develop free and open data / information sharing • apply sound science as the basis for risk assessment • assess uncertainty • continue to renew and improve watershed plans • commit to ongoing research in support of source protection plans (applied research and sharing of ‘lessons learned’) Figure 1. Watershed or proposed jurisdictional boundaries for planned implementation of source water protection in Ontario (base map from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, moraines modified from Barnett et al., 1991) Of fundamental importance from a geoscience point of view is: how can one protect source water? In considering groundwater and linked surface water resources, a key issue in watershed protection is the recognition and evaluation of sensitive hydrogeological terrains such as recharge areas, preferential pathways and discharge areas. To adequately assess flow systems from ‘source to tap ’ requires a geological framework developed using a basin analysis principle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".