MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515102308 · doi:10.1080/07900627.2016.1216830

Lessons from implementing integrated water resource management: a case study of the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority, Ontario

2016· article· en· W2515102308 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paula Scott, Brian Tayler, Dan Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Water Resources Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStewardship (theology)MandateEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementIntegrated water resources managementNatural resourceStakeholderStakeholder engagementNatural resource managementBusinessCommunity-based conservationWatershed managementWatershedWater resourcesPolitical scienceGeographyPublic relationsEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study explores the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority’s experience in implementing IWRM. Successes include protecting life and property by mitigating flood and erosion hazards; building capacity through multi-stakeholder collaborations; and fostering community stewardship. Ongoing challenges include limited resources and narrow mandate for addressing broader watershed and natural resources issues; and a need to enhance relationships with First Nations. The NBMCA has learned numerous lessons on how to apply IWRM, including collaborating early and often and fostering community stewardship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Water Resources DevelopmentSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207