Recent Developments in Canadian Water Policy: An Emerging Water Security Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on a large-scale survey, in-depth interviews, and a facilitated workshop, the authors document the concerns held by water policy makers, managers, and practitioners regarding the limitations of water security assessment capacity in Canada. A primary objective of the research presented in this paper was to refine and test a definition of water security relevant to the Canadian context. The second objective of the research was to determine whether, how, and why Canadian water managers use water monitoring and assessment tools that could support improved water security. In closing, the analysis suggests that a broad definition of water security may, under certain conditions, be helpful in framing water-related concerns in Canada. À partir des résultats d'une enquête de grande envergure, des entrevues en profondeur et d'un atelier dirigé, nous dressons un portrait des préoccupations soulevées par des responsables politiques, des gestionnaires et des praticiens œuvrant dans le domaine de l'eau qui se sont exprimés au sujet des limites auxquelles se heurtent les capacités d'évaluation de la sécurité hydrique au Canada. Le présent article s'inscrit dans la lignée des travaux de recherche visant à peaufiner et à vérifier la pertinence de la définition de la sécurité hydrique dans le contexte canadien. L'autre objectif de cette recherche est de mettre en évidence les raisons qui motivent les gestionnaires de l'eau au Canada à mettre en place des outils de surveillance et d'évaluation des ressources en eau pouvant favoriser l'amélioration de la sécurité hydrique, ainsi que le degré et les modalités d'utilisation de ces outils. Il se dégage de cette étude qu'une définition globale de la sécurité hydrique peut, dans certaines circonstances, servir à mieux cerner les préoccupations qui se manifestent au Canada dans le domaine de l'eau.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".