Evaluating the success of public participation in water resources management: five key constituents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public participation (PP) is increasingly expected to enhance the effectiveness of water resources management. This is recognized in recent legislation such as the European Union Water Framework Directive. We identify five key constituents that affect the success of PP processes and which can be used as indicators thereof. These comprise: 1) the scope of the participants; 2) communication with the public; 3) capacity building; 4) timing; and 5) financing of participation. They are based on the management of resources—namely time, human and financial resources—and on further aspects that emerge from the utilization of these resources throughout the PP process. Drawing on existing case studies from the European Union and Canada, we demonstrate the applicability of our evaluative scheme. We find severe deficits in the PP cases that can all be attributed to the five key constituents. Although not representative, our analysis points to important challenges for water policy, particularly in the European multi-level context.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it