MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6989378093

Being with Water Otherwise: Sacred Knowledge and Sustainable Water–human Relations: Conference Report

2024· other· en· W6989378093 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueSOAS Research Online (SOAS University of London) · 2024
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIndigenousTraditional knowledgeRelation (database)Circumpolar starGeneral partnershipAllianceSociology of scientific knowledgeCorporate governance
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The conference Being with Water OTHERWISE (April 15-16, 2024) brought together scholars, practitioners, and activists from diverse backgrounds to explore the intricate intersections of religion, water, and sustainability. Over the course of two days, participants engaged in thought-provoking discussions, presentations, and workshops that offered profound insights and lessons for addressing contemporary water challenges. Academic convenor Dr Safet HadžiMuhamedović summarises the event—his full-length report is available to download below.Drawing fresh insightsDay 1 focused on understanding water through sacred perspectives, challenging traditional paradigms, and reimagining human–water relations. The opening addresses called for a decolonisation of our conceptualisation of water, urging us to move beyond reductionist views and embrace sacred knowledge. They also outlined the multiplicity of projects that the Cambridge Interfaith Programme is engaged in to address the intersection of religion with different global challenges.The first day took us on watery journeys from the Finnish and Canadian Circumpolar North, through British pilgrimage sites, Buryatia in Eastern Siberia, Northeast Australia, the Torres Strait and a Ghanian mining village, as well as on a trip around the world with a profusion of serpentine water beings across different cultural contexts. Speakers raised questions about: a) the relational nature of water, emphasising its dynamic and reciprocal interactions with humans, including various forms of kinship with water beings; b) water management dynamics in relation to indigenous knowledge systems, highlighting the need to integrate diverse perspectives into water governance strategies; c) law’s capacity to hear indigenous stories and understand markedly different relations to water, suggesting the need to expand the notion of evidence, but also think beyond law. Fittingly, given the emphasis on pilgrimage, the day ended with a punting trip on the River Cam.Day 2 delved into practical applications and collaborations. Contributors emphasised the importance of grassroots activism, religious teachings, and community-driven initiatives in promoting sustainable water practices.The Cambridge researchDiscussion of Dr Anastasia Badder’s report, Water and/in religious relations: a Cambridge study, illuminated the necessity of incorporating diverse cultural and religious perspectives into water management strategies, urging collaboration between water industry actors and impacted communities. Responding, Mumin Islam highlighted the challenges of integrating religious values into workplace practices within the water industry, stressing the importance of leveraging religious teachings for environmental stewardship. Professor Ian Barker echoed these sentiments, advocating for a paradigm shift in how water companies engage with communities and emphasising the transformative potential of integrating religious perspectives into water management practices.Dr Badder had also invited an array of her interlocutors to contribute: Meg Clarke addressed local water quality issues in Cambridge, advocating for community-driven initiatives to protect and restore water sources. James Murray White shared personal reflections on the impact of pollution on local chalk streams, advocating for awareness-raising and community engagement in conservation efforts through storytelling and filmmaking. Tilak Parekh offered profound insights into the symbolic significance of water within Hinduism, highlighting its central role in religious rituals and spiritual practices. Professor Tony Booth’s discussion on pressing environmental challenges facing the river Cam underscored the importance of recognising the river’s rights and advocating for sustainable water management practices grounded in values-led educational development and inclusion.The Scriptural Reasoning workshop provided an interlude between these discussions, illustrating the power of this practice to provide an inclusive platform, fostering dialogue and mutual understanding among attendees. The water-based text pack was the same that had been used in November as part of the research process.Key takeawaysThroughout the conference, several key lessons emerged:Firstly, there is a pressing need for interdisciplinary collaboration and inclusive approaches to water governance that incorporate diverse cultural and religious perspectives. Secondly, building trust and empathy between stakeholders is essential for fostering greater engagement and cooperation in addressing water challenges. Thirdly, grassroots activism and community-driven initiatives play a crucial role in promoting sustainable water practices and environmental stewardship. Finally, recognising the relational nature of water and its intrinsic value beyond mere resource extraction is fundamental to reshaping human–water relations in a more sustainable direction.In conclusion, the conference provided a valuable platform for meaningful dialogue, collaboration, and knowledge exchange, highlighting the profound significance of water in human culture and the urgent need for collective action to ensure water security and sustainability for future generations. Attendees departed with a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between religion, water, and sustainability, as well as a renewed commitment to advancing innovative solutions and practices in water governance and management.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,157

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,003
Communication savante0,0150,007
Science ouverte0,0020,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0470,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,330
Écart entre enseignants0,294 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSOAS Research Online (SOAS University of London)Travaux en français237 207