Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Water Resources Act requires a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) for withdrawals greater than 50,000 L/day. The permitting process includes a requirement to minimize the environmental effects of the withdrawal, but does not include a specific framework to do so. A methodology is proposed for estimating the water supply, the water demand, both anthropogenic and ecological, and the amount available for withdrawal. Water supply is estimated using statistical analysis of recorded daily flows in the watershed of interest, in adjacent watersheds, and in the region. Anthropogenic demand is given by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s PTTW database. Ecological demand is also estimated using statistical analysis of recorded daily flows, and through field measurement methods such as the Wetted Perimeter method. A case study of Millhaven Creek in eastern Ontario shows that the methodology is appropriate for this area and, with minor modifications, would apply to the rest of Ontario. Evaluation of the existing methods for water supply estimation showed that using long-term data for analysis is the best method, and that the regional analysis work completed for Ontario is out of data and needs revising. Estimation methods for ecological demand are not necessarily appropriate for all areas. A single instream flow requirement based on the Mean Annual Flow is not appropriate for Millhaven Creek, and even a set of flows based on Mean Monthly Flows needs modification to be acceptable for Millhaven Creek. Supply minus demand varies from month to month, and therefore the decision on whether to issue a permit depends on the season as well as the duration of the withdrawal (e.g. seasonal vs. continuous) and type of use proposed (e.g. golf course irrigation vs. municipal drinking water). ii
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".