Bibliographic record
Abstract
The water resources of southern Africa have featured centrally in the global literature on water conflict and cooperation. This scholarship has appeared in two waves: (1) the post‐Cold War focus on resource scarcities and the possibility of ‘water wars’ and (2) the mid‐2000s rise of fears surrounding the impact of a changing climate on water resource regimes. The first wave, in the region, ironically resulted in a significant body of scholarship demonstrating the predominance of cooperation rather than conflict. The second wave has served primarily as a spur to better governance and management, and to better integration across the policy making landscape. Running as something of a countercurrent to these dominant trends, is critical scholarship that focuses primarily on water rights and regards conflict as a necessary means to more equitable resource access ends. A key challenge for scholars of water conflict and cooperation across the region is, therefore, to reconcile both theoretically and practically the macro studies of largely transboundary water politics with the micro studies of social struggles for water in urban and rural settings. The article concludes that for a third wave of studies to add value to questions of regional water security, scholars must (1) recognize the simultaneous presence of conflict and cooperation, (2) acknowledge that not all conflict is bad, neither is all cooperation good, (3) approach the analysis more systematically through hard data gathering, and (4) read beyond their disciplines in order to more fully understand the social dynamics of the region. WIREs Water 2015, 2:215–230. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1070 This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".