Boundary Dynamics in Natural Resource Management: The Ambiguity of Stakeholder Inclusion
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
This paper discusses a case study in the domain of water management and nature conservation from the perspective of boundary dynamics. Multiparty collaboration is proposed as an organizational strategy to manage natural resources. This approach acknowledges the multiple perspectives of stakeholders, the differences in interest and power, and it provides a strategy for change in a domain with a high potential for conflict (Buckles, 1999). The first part of the paper outlines the theoretical insights and frames that underpin the case analysis. Then it discusses boundary issues in a project set up to design a plan for a river valley to solve problems of flooding and deterioration of nature. With this in-depth case study in a complex organizational setting we aim to contribute to empirical research on the perceptions of boundaries in processes of organizing (Paulsen & Hernes, 2003).
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it