MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Source Water Protection in Traditional Haudenosaunee Nations: Report on SFAA/EPA Environmental Anthropology Fellowship

2001· article· en· W1972553804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kreg Ettenger

Bibliographic record

VenuePracticing Anthropology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask forceEnvironmental protectionPolitical scienceWater resourcesWater sourceClean Water ActEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPublic administrationEcologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceWater resource managementWater quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a source water protection project carried out under a fellowship funded through the SfAA/EPA Cooperative Agreement in Environmental Anthropology. The fellowship, entitled "Community Dynamics of Source Water Protection," was sponsored by the EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW), and was designed to provide technical assistance to American Indian Nations engaged in drinking water protection efforts. Through a collaboration with the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, a regional organization with delegates from Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Nations in New York and Canada, I worked with the Tuscarora Nation in western New York to help them develop a source water protection education booklet for their community. I also prepared a guide to source water protection resources on the internet for use by HETF members and Nation environmental staff. Both documents are designed specifically to meet the needs of traditional Haudenosaunee Nations, based on my understanding of their current circumstances and environmental protection goals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePracticing AnthropologySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207