PUBLIC EMPOWERMENT AND ACTIONS IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL MULTISTAKEHOLDER COLLABORATIVE PROCESS[1].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines a community-based Multistakeholder Collaborative Process (MCP) on water management. While public participation around natural resource management is now becoming a standard practice for many institutions and researchers, forms of participation are still highly variable and their outcomes remain dubious. In corporate and management circles, the prevailing rhetoric then made a dramatic shift from economic-environmental conflict to a discourse of reconciliation. The Ville-Marie Intervention Zone Committee is an established MCP in Quebec. Since the inauguration of the program, the Saint Lawrence River has been an area of a social experiment. Its goal is to involve the population as a partner in restoring the ecosystem in an extensive program that was initially called the Saint Lawrence Action Plan. Phase I was designed to address the scientific opinions of experts who had identified some 23 areas of prime concern along the Saint Lawrence. The main success was the elimination of 74% of toxic effluent dumped into the river from manufacturers. The ultimate goal of the Ecological Remediation Action Plans is to involve and mobilize the local population in a consensus decision building process in order to plan remedial, protective and promotional projects for the Saint Lawrence River.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".