MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254121421

Water Governance in the Saskatchewan River Basin: A Preliminary Study

2015· article· en· W2254121421 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brittany T Morgan, Robert Patrick, Marie-Ann Bowden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Resources and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceStructural basinDrainage basinWater resourcesClimate changeEnvironmental planningGeographyWater resource managementEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceBusinessEnvironmental scienceCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Saskatchewan River Basin (SRB) is a vital and essential resource for the three Canadian prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The cumulative impacts of past and future development combined with the realities of climate change raise new questions about the current regime of water governance in the region. At present, multiple agencies affect different aspects of water governance across the SRB. This study is a preliminary assessment, based on key informant interviews, of existing water governance efficacy in the SRB. Using a range of probing questions, key informant perceptions regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities respecting water governance in the SRB are uncovered. The findings of this study suggest that the advantages of the current fragmented, multiagency regime of water governance in the SRB are outnumbered by the disadvantages. Keywords: Canada; water governance; Saskatchewan River Basin; jurisdictional fragmentation

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)0.002
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.270
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicWater Resources and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207