MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579422623 · doi:10.3390/w9010060

Building a Foundation for Knowledge Co-Creation in Collaborative Water Governance: Dimensions of Stakeholder Networks Facilitated through Bridging Organizations

2017· article· en· W2579422623 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsKnowledge managementBridging (networking)StakeholderKnowledge sharingCorporate governanceBusinessCollaborative governanceContext (archaeology)Knowledge creationCollaborative networkStakeholder engagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sustainable governance of water resources relies on processes of multi-stakeholder collaborations and interactions that facilitate the sharing and integration of diverse sources and types of knowledge. In this context, it is essential to fully recognize the importance of fostering and enhancing critical connections within and between networks of relationships between different government and non-government agencies, as well as the dynamics that are in support of the development of new knowledge and practices. In Quebec, a network of watershed organizations (WOs) has been put in place to serve as bridging organizations (BOs) for stakeholder groups in their watershed territories. Using the WOs as a case study, this research aims to contribute to a greater understanding of how stakeholder groups can be effectively connected to support knowledge co-creation through networked relationships facilitated by BOs. In line with this overall research aim, the following research objectives are proposed: (1) to assess the quality of the knowledge that is developed and shared through the WOs and their stakeholder networks; (2) to determine the characteristics of stakeholders participating in the WOs’ networks that either hinder or support collaborations and knowledge co-creation; (3) to describe the collaborative processes and mechanisms through which the WOs facilitate stakeholder interactions and knowledge co-creation; and (4) to assess the quality of the relationships and interactions between stakeholders participating in the WOs’ collaborative networks. A comprehensive literature review is provided of collaborative network dimensions that are in support of knowledge co-creation that forms the foundation of a research framework to assess knowledge co-creation processes that are facilitated through BOs and their collaborative networks. Documented experiences have been gathered through face-to-face semi-structured interviews, as well as a Quebec-wide survey distributed to all WOs and their staff. A total of 41 interviews were conducted, of which nine interviews were with staff members of six selected WOs. Stakeholder perspectives were captured through 33 interviews with diverse stakeholders from three of the six selected WOs. Additionally, interviews were also conducted with five decision makers at the Quebec provincial government level. The findings of this study point to some key challenges and constraints for the effective facilitation of collaboration and knowledge co-creation through the Quebec WOs and their stakeholder networks. Through diverse collaborative mechanisms, most WOs have, to an extent, succeeded in creating opportunities for learning through a renewed sense making of different practices (and related identities) through the development of their watershed master plans, as well as through the facilitation of new communicative connections and translation efforts between diverse stakeholder groups. Key challenges to their effectiveness have been relating to a limited capacity and resources, limited territory-wide impacts, as well as limited perceived legitimacy that hindered the WOs as BOs in their ability to facilitate effective knowledge co-creation. Areas for further research to overcome these challenges are in developing a greater understanding of how BOs can optimize resources and capacities available in their collaborative networks through, e.g., the development of boundary-crossing leaders and competences, as well as the use of Information Communication Technology (ICT).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.307 · 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