A Sacred Responsibility: Governing the Use of Water and Related Resources in the International Columbia Basin Through the Prism of Tribes and First Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the fall of 2012, leaders from Columbia Basin First Nations and tribes participated, along with about 150 other people, in the 4th transboundary symposium convened by the Universities Consortium on Columbia River Governance. Gathered on the shores of Flathead Lake in Polson, Montana, the participants explored the interests, rights, roles, and responsibilities of indigenous people in the international Columbia River Basin. This symposium generated two notable outcomes: first, The Columbia River Basin: A Sense of the Future—a synthesis of interests and concerns with regard to the future of the transboundary river basin as captured by the Universities Consortium during four symposia and related research initiatives; and second, a commitment from indigenous people to continue exploring their role in the governance of the international Columbia Basin.\nFollowing the symposium, members of the Universities Consortium continued to work with the Columbia Basin tribes and First Nations to frame an appropriate set of objectives to guide this applied research and report. After an exchange of memorandum and the creation of a steering committee, the Steering Committee agreed to a number of objectives.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".