Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the implementation of drinking water security legislation was an important response to a water quality tragedy in Ontario, Canada, its effect has been circumscribed by hydrosocial relations underlying water governance arrangements. The long‐established land‐use planning—and more recent growth planning and place‐based planning—laws and policies make water management secondary to land whether it is as part of the ecological system, as a resource, or as an amenity. The effect is to subjugate source water protection to land use and, indeed, economic development priorities for resource extraction. The Ontario case shows that implementation of proactive drinking water security through source protection law and policy will be circumscribed by hydrosocial relations that prioritize the economic development. To implement proactive drinking water security will require a fundamental rethinking of the trade‐offs implicit in our existing hydrosocial relations. WIREs Water 2016, 3:5–12. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1117 This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".