Water and Indigenous Peoples: Canada’s Paradox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The condition of water safety and quality on reserve has been a growing concern in Canada. Despite a substantial amount of funding allocated toward improving water infrastructure on reserve, an alarming proportion of communities face boil and drinking water advisories. To understand why this paradox and problem persists, this article will work through the issues and nuances that have created unsafe drinking water on reserve, proposed remedies, and policy implications. To do so, the role of the Government of Canada is reviewed first because reserve land is under federal jurisdiction. Following this, the article will discuss the standpoints of the Assembly of First Nations and other Indigenous groups on the water crisis, and will draw upon focus groups within First Nations that we conducted. To contextualize the water issue on reserve in Canada, a comparison with the United States is then drawn. One of the main themes of this paper with regard to the issue of safe drinking water on reserve is how the legacy of colonization has limited community capacity. This theme is then discussed in depth by comparing Indigenous to non-Indigenous communities, looking to the social determinants of water quality, and possibilities and limitations of building sustainable development allowing for safe drinking water on reserve. To understand what processes consistently intervene in the way of sustainability of safe water in Indigenous communities, regulatory frameworks are examined, funding mechanisms are reviewed, and Aboriginal governance is discussed along with the direction that policy should take.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".