MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2246094388 · doi:10.1080/07011784.2015.1033759

Examining First Nations’ approach to protecting water resources using a multi-barrier approach to safe drinking water in Southern Ontario, Canada

2015· article· en· W2246094388 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Thomas Dyck, Ryan Plummer, Derek Armitage

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBrock UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Environment
KeywordsLegislaturePoliticsCorporate governancePolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)Water resourcesWater qualityRelevance (law)Public administrationEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyBusinessEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses a multi-barrier approach (MBA) to examine issues and opportunities with water resource protection in three First Nations communities in Southern Ontario (Mississauga of the New Credit First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and Six Nations of the Grand River). The cross-case analysis highlights the relevance of attitudes toward water and authority, cultural practices, current legislative and regulative arrangements, and quality of relationships for improving water management and governance. Employing a perspective that captures cultural, social, economic and political contexts may enhance the ability to address persistent water challenges experienced by First Nations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207