Conflicts Associated with Exempt Wells: A Spaghetti Western Water War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The saga over exempt wells in the western United States and Canada epitomizes a new type of water conflict – a spaghetti‐western water war. The political melodrama stars local governments to serve as sheriff of water‐supply planning duties. Exempt wells number in the millions, and herding the growing numbers is testing the mettle of the states and provinces responsible for the management, allocation, and protection of natural resources. The separation of laws governing ground water and surface water, coupled with changes in geography and geology within a jurisdiction, compound the administrative riddle and give rise to a broad spectrum of conflicts, from differing interpretations of hydrogeologic data, economic impacts associated with increasing the herd, to differing identities associated with the use of ground water from the exempt wells. Despite the political melodrama of exempt wells, there is room and willingness for other trails and paths to keep the herd intact. This paper describes the different breeds of conflicts associated with exempt wells and gives examples of how the mysterious stranger of collaborative decision making processes and water governance systems can ride into town and lead to successful water management and conflict resolution.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".