Water policy reform and Indigenous governance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns related to the governance of water that have emerged at the global scale have created pressure for, and an increase in, water policy reform in many countries. Simultaneously, Indigenous governance movements related to self-determination are undergoing an immense period of growth and change worldwide; the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been a milestone of this growth. These movements are significant because of Indigenous peoples' asserted rights to lands, waters, and natural resources. In this paper, we explore the extent to which water policy reform efforts recognize concepts of Indigenous governance and self-determination. The extent to which these concepts are recognized is critical because water policy reform often occurs in the asserted traditional territories of Indigenous peoples. Using an empirical case study of water policy reform in British Columbia (BC), Canada, we demonstrate why in Indigenous traditional homelands, water policy reform efforts should have regard for the main tenets of Indigenous governance. The findings indicate that, problematic assumptions exist regarding the role of First Nations. These assumptions have the potential to undermine the prospects for water policy reform. Revisiting these assumptions may be the basis for more effective, enduring policy changes. Implications for water reform processes around the world are 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it