Capacity to manage water resources : perspective for the Sechelt Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity to determine the future of any community depends on the extent of options available. This thesis describes the historical development of control over water resources, and how this impacts on the Sechelt Indian Bands (SIB) capacity to determine their future interests. Water management is a concern for the SIB both in terms of their being able to determine their future development, but also for non-consumptive issues such as maintenance of their fisheries. The construction of management authorities via legislation has curtailed the capacity for the SIB to define the development of Sechelt lands and participate in the management of water. The Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act was negotiated by the Sechelt people to expand control over the development of Band lands and resources. This municipal model of self-government, although it affords some benefits with respect to community access of water, is constrained by the continuance of licensed priority allocations, overlapping bureaucracies, and the Provinces focus on program (versus area) management. The Provincial the Chapman/Gray Integrated Watershed Management process, was reviewed to ascertain whether, by their participation in this process, the SIB has wrested any control over water and water management. The discussion highlights that: within the process extractive industries are still a priority, this can be a prohibitively protracted experience, and that the responsibility conferred on the water purveyor does not enable the authority to deliver quality water. This affects the Bands capacity to actualize their community vision.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".