La gestión del agua y el desarrollo de indicadores ambientales en México y Canadá: un análisis comparativo
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One major barrier in the effective implementation of integrated urban water is the missing operable indicators or criteria for indicating implementation success. Canada is recognized as a country leader in the development of environmental indicators; thus this study proposes a comparative analysis with the aim of finding proposals for Mexico, as well as identifying limitations in implementation. Based on a combination of documental research and fieldwork the following areas were compared: Problems in water management; the institutional framework of existing environmental indicators; and the use of indicators of water management. From the country and city-level analysis of Mexico City and Montreal we observe a strong difference in water management systems which are reflected in the type of proposed indicators. But in both cases there are very few urban water-related indicators and a lack of coordination and organization of the data that result in poor use by the decision-makers.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it