The Effect of Respect, Trust, and Fear in Adversarial Stakeholder Relationships: A Case Study on Water Commodification and Stakeholder Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current academic discussion around stakeholder engagement has historically been focused on the attributes of the various stakeholders rather than on the relationship between the stakeholders. This paper examines the role that the intangible variables, respect, fear, and trust play in stakeholder relationships that are characterized by intractable conflict. That role is explored through a case study of stakeholder groups with adversarial positions on the commodification and export of Canada’s freshwater. Through discussion of the relationship between two sets of stakeholders with conflicting interests on Canada’s freshwater commodification respect, fear, and trust are advanced as the key intangible variables that create the underlying conflict. With these root causes identified the paper explores methods to build respect, reduce fear, and create trust between the stakeholders in an effort to shift their relationship from adversarial to co-operative in the hopes of facilitating constructive dialogue.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".