MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274878663 · doi:10.2166/wst.2003.0354

Stakeholder involvement in water management: necessity or luxury?

2003· article· en· W2274878663 on OpenAlex
Kim Morrison

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderBusinessWater Framework DirectiveEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementAgricultureStakeholder analysisStakeholder managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomicsWater qualityEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stakeholder involvement in water management is widely recognized as an important component of the design and implementation of sustainable water management initiatives. Despite this, there remains a deep-rooted resistance to the widespread implementation of programs to prioritize such involvement (as witnessed by, for example, the low priority given to the public involvement element of the European Union Water Framework Directive). This paper addresses the issue of stakeholder involvement by first confronting the fact that it is not a water issue, per se. Such diverse fields as economics, agriculture, public health, pollution prevention, business and education have also identified stakeholder involvement as a difficult but necessary component of successful action in their fields. For the water sector, the issue of stakeholder involvement as either a necessity for sustainable water management, or a luxury to be used to complement traditional approaches, is discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.197 · 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