MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056989238 · doi:10.1068/a37224

Integrated Water Resource Management, Institutional Arrangements, and Land-Use Planning

2005· article· en· W2056989238 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated water resources managementCredibilityStatutory lawResource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningBusinessEcosystem approachBoundary (topology)Water resourcesProcess managementEcosystemComputer scienceEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systems, holistic, or ecosystem approach is often advocated for water management, and has led to the emergence of integrated water resource management, or IWRM. Such an approach can be interpreted as ‘comprehensive’ or ‘integrated’, and analysts, planners, and managers need to understand the difference. Edge or boundary problems always are encountered when applying a holistic approach, and design of institutional arrangements cannot eliminate these problems but can minimize them. IWRM often does not have a statutory basis, which can lead to implementation challenges. By linking IWRM to land-use planning and official plans at the local level, IWRM can be given credibility, as well as be systematically connected to land-based issues.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.155 · 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