Empowering communities to carry out drought contingency planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drought is a pervasive natural hazard, even in relatively water rich areas such as the Province of Ontario, Canada. A common response to drought in many jurisdictions has been crisis management, especially involving drought relief during or after a drought event. Proactive drought contingency planning, which takes a risk management approach to reduce vulnerability, is much more appropriate. Unfortunately, the extent to which local communities have the capacity to participate effectively in this activity is highly variable. This paper explores factors that facilitate and constrain locally led drought contingency planning and highlights several that relate to management capacity, or the ability of local actors to accomplish their objectives and participate effectively in implementing appropriate drought responses. Drought planning experiences in Australia and the United States are used to frame an evaluation of Ontario's new drought contingency planning approach. We conclude that while Ontario's approach has many desirable features (e.g. organized around watersheds; locally driven), it also has several shortcomings, relating especially to the way in which droughts are understood, coordination of roles and responsibilities and community disempowerment during severe droughts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".