Evaluating the Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable Planning Process and the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses an evaluative framework synthesized from the literature on collaborative planning, integrated water resource management, and adaptive governance to evaluate the Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable’s planning process and its application of the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation framework. The Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable was the first organization in Canada to apply the Open Standards framework in developing a multi-jurisdictional collaborative watershed plan, and among the first in the world to apply the Open Standards in a way that integrated ecological and human well-being goals. The evaluative framework consists of criteria in four broad categories: (1) Collaborative Planning; (2) Holistic Approach; (3) Authority and Control; and (4) Learning and Adjusting with Experience. The Roundtable performed well on most criteria. I make seven recommendations to improve the planning process and discuss four key considerations to guide similar community-based initiatives seeking to apply the Open Standards framework for watershed planning.
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 | 0.175 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".