MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985402819 · doi:10.1108/17506200910999129

Water and development in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia

2009· article· en· W1985402819 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Enterprising Communities People and Places in the Global Economy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceVariety (cybernetics)SustainabilityOriginalityScarcityValue (mathematics)Environmental planningWater useEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceBusinessGeographyEconomicsComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of water governance in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia and the challenges now facing the region as a consequence of rapid growth and global warming. The paper seeks to examine the possible benefits that might accrue from applying a distributed, multilevel approach to water governance in this and other settings. Design/methodology/approach Interviews with over 100 fruit growers and ranchers and with ten water managers in the Okanagan Valley between 2005 and 2009 are conducted. Archival materials documenting the history of agriculture and irrigation in the valley are examined to provide historical depth to the study. An interdisciplinary review of theoretical literature on multilevel governance is conducted and also a comparative review of water governance systems in Canada and elsewhere. Findings The evidence supports the conclusion that distributed, multilevel governance systems offer an effective means of managing water in diverse settings, and that they are preferable, for a variety of reasons, to top‐down approaches that concentrate regulatory authority in state‐level institutions. Practical implications On a global scale, current water governance practices are proving inadequate to meet the challenges of increasing scarcity and competition. This paper describes a governance model that can be applied in many settings and which can help resolve conflict while facilitating sustainable management. Originality/value This paper integrates empirical and theoretical material from a variety of disciplines and diverse physical settings to construct a model of water governance designed to facilitate the combined goals of ecological sustainability, affordability, and equitable access to water resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.179 · 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