MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997534476 · doi:10.4296/cwrj3101013

A Participatory Approach to Water Management: Irrigation Advisory Committees in Southern Ontario

2006· article· en· W1997534476 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAcademic Research and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvisory committeeIrrigation managementCitizen journalismIrrigationEnvironmental planningWater resource managementPublic administrationEnvironmental scienceGeographyEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceBusinessAgricultureArchaeologyAgronomyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Irrigated agriculture in Ontario is a significant economic driver and contributes to the worldwide need for food and fibre. Although water resources are relatively abundant in Ontario, there are water conflicts in some locations, particularly when irrigation is common. By involving the local community in water management, conflicts over water may be dealt with successfully through mechanisms other than regulation. The benefits of community development and local management of conflict include: lower cost, win–win outcomes, local control and wider compliance. Irrigation Advisory Committees (IACs) have been established in southern Ontario to assist in managing the available water resources among irrigators without disrupting the natural functions of the streams. While IACs have no specific legislative authority they successfully promote cooperation amongst users, allow for communication between regulatory agencies and users, provide informal mediation in the case of conflicts and serve as a forum for education of irrigators. The IAC structure is an example of successful, local, self–management of conflict in natural resources. L'agriculture irriguée est un important moteur économique en Ontario et contribue aux besoins mondiaux d'aliments et de fibres textiles. Malgré l'abondance relative des ressources hydriques en Ontario, des conflits d'utilisation de l'eau existent dans certaines localités, surtout lorsque l'irrigation est courante. En impliquant la communauté locale dans la gestion de l'eau, ces conflits peuvent être réglés de façon satisfaisante en faisant appel à des méthodes autres que la réglementation. Les avantages du développement communautaire et de la gestion locale des conflits incluent : coûts inférieurs, résultats gagnant–gagnant, contrôle local et respect plus généralisé. Des comités consultatifs pour l'irrigation (CCI) ont été établis dans le Sud de l'Ontario pour appuyer la gestion des ressources hydriques disponibles entre les irrigateurs sans bouleverser les fonctions naturelles des cours d'eau. Les CCI supportent la coopération entre les utilisateurs, facilitent la communication entre les agences réglementaires et les utilisateurs, fournissent une médiation informelle dans les cas de conflits et servent de forum pour l'éducation des irrigateurs. Les CCI n'ont pas d'autorisation légale. La structure des CCI est un exemple réussi d'auto–gestion de conflits dans l'utilisation des ressources naturelles.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.196 · 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