A framework for assessing capacity in water governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alberta's water governance is shaped by a complex web of provincial and federal acts and policies, inter-provincial, inter-territorial, and international management and allocation agreements, and local government bylaws.Adding to the intricacy, water governance is a collaborative process with government departments, government mandated agencies and non-governmental organizations involved.A diverse landscape and varying water needs also contribute to the complexity of water management.Recently, Alberta's water governance has evolved to become more of a collaborative bottom-up rather than top-down approach to management involving a wide range of stakeholders.The direction for water resource management has been driven primarily by the Water for Life strategy.With the shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach to water management, many questions arise around the capacity of stakeholders to fulfill their roles in this governance structure.In this context, the paper develops a conceptual framework to assess stakeholder capacity in water governance which can be modified to be used in other geographic and resource contexts.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".