Exploring the Governance Landscape of Indigenous Peoples and Water in Canada – An Introduction to the Special Issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to water of sufficient quality and adequate quantity is a global concern. In excess of one billion people world-wide experience poor water quality or inadequate amounts of water, and many of these people are indigenous (Boelens, Chiba and Nakashima, 2006). The World Water Assessment Programme (2003:4) accordingly argued that “this crisis is one of water governance, essentially caused by the ways in which we mismanage water”. Diagnosing the crisis as a matter of governance highlights the complicated and dynamic social landscape of societal decision-making. Many actors are involved, roles and responsibilities are contested, and multi-scale influences need to be carefully considered. It requires attention to institutions (formal and non-formal), policies and practices. Water governance is broadly understood as “the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and management water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society” (Rogers and Hall, 2003:2).
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".