Fairness and justice in Indigenous water allocations: insights from Northern Australia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on findings from participatory action research, we describe a process for the development of a Strategic Indigenous Reserve (SIR) in water for Indigenous groups in the Northern Territory, Australia. In the first case study at Mataranka, we show how a ‘top-down’ process initiated by the Northern Territory Government (NTG) was characterised by inadequate engagement and a failure to deliver water justice or an outcome accepted by the traditional owner groups. In a second case study at Oolloo, the traditional owner groups were engaged by the NTG in a consultation process, but it commenced with a unilateral offer of a water allocation to the SIR that was not formulated in a collaborative way. As a result, traditional owners considered the process unfair, and in turn, the allocation offer was perceived as ‘unfair’. Using insights from these two cases we outline an alternative and collaborative process to support engagement by decision-makers with Indigenous groups that promotes water allocations and outcomes that are just, sustainable and have broad-based community support.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it