MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2228566254 · doi:10.2166/wp.2011.073

Climate change and water governance: an International Joint Commission case study

2011· article· en· W2228566254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Serieyssol Bleser, Kristen C. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransboundary Water Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionCorporate governanceSustainable managementNatural resourceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessClimate changeJoint (building)Natural resource managementEnvironmental planningWater resourcesLegitimacySustainable developmentSustainabilityPolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Governance has been identified by many scholars as a challenge to managing natural resources in a sustainable way. In addition, climate change is impacting natural resources, and complicating management. In light of these concerns, it is important that key characteristics of sustainable management are not ignored. Scientific legitimacy, an integrative ecosystem approach, long-term monitoring and pro-active governance are all important characteristics of successful sustainable management plans. However, these characteristics have not all been included in the day-to-day functioning of the International Joint Commission. This paper looks specifically at the key characteristics required for sustainable management of transboundary water resources and determines if the International Joint Commission, and particularly the International Rainy Lake Board of Control, are applying them to policies for regulation and management of border waters shared by Ontario (Canada) and Minnesota (USA).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater PolicySame topicTransboundary Water Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207