MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Business of Water: Market Environmentalism in the Water Sector

2014· article· en· W2099947943 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Bakker

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Environment and Resources · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCommodificationMarketizationEnvironmentalismCommercializationCorporate governanceLiberalizationEnvironmental governanceValuation (finance)Economic systemBusiness ethicsEconomicsPoliticsBusinessMarket economyPolitical scienceAccountingFinanceLawChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the literature relevant to market environmentalism in the water sector, focusing on five themes: the privatization of resource ownership and management, the commercialization of resource management organizations, the environmental valuation and pricing of resources, the marketization of trading and exchange mechanisms, and the liberalization of governance. For each dimension, the discussion addresses a topic of contemporary academic interest (and policy and political relevance): privatization and protest, the contradictions of commercialization, the distinction between environmental valuation and commodification, the multiplication of modes of marketization, and the limits to the liberalization of environmental governance. Specific attention is given to unresolved questions and tensions in the debate over market environmentalism, particularly the tension between human rights and environmental rights and among state, market, and community roles in water management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Environment and ResourcesSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207