MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582447402

Governing Water in Canada: The Legislative Experiments in New Governance

2015· dissertation· en· W2582447402 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia Hania

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureCorporate governancePolitical sciencePublic administrationEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceBusinessLawFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Governing water in Canada is in transition. Since 2000, episodes of drought, unsafe drinking water, and polluted watersheds have affected local and First Nations communities. In reaction to these crises, provincial regulators entered a new governance phase. This regulatory turn profoundly transforms the traditional environmental regulatory approach by introducing a collaborative new governance arrangement. The legal scholarship is generally supportive of this trend, however, a dearth of empirical research exists to understand how decisions are made under this new regulatory approach.\nThis dissertation presents an eco-resiliency framework to examine the responsiveness of this new governance mode to environmental change. The primary research question is: What lessons can be taken from resiliency theory and applied in the sphere of environmental regulation and governance? Three comparative case studies of local watershed-level committees in Ontario, Alberta, and the Yukon served as empirical evidence. The research methodology adopted a qualitative approach (i.e., participant observation and interviews with committee members) and a thorough review of the relevant legislation, administrative decisions, policy documents, and media reports. The data was analyzed in terms of the four eco-resiliency elements: flexibility, diversity, a broad perspective, and emergent change.\nContrary to the themes of inclusivity and consensus found in the collaborative governance literature, the research findings exposed an insular and technocratic decision-making process that served the political interests of the province and the administrative needs of the regulatory agency. Even though, in theory, the provincial regimes under study allowed for a diverse number of stakeholders at the policy table, in practice, only a few experts influenced the decision-making. Local communities ecological health and environmental concerns including First Nations ways of knowing water were overlooked. The devolution of water governance to a local level, rather than empowering local public-interest representatives, concentrates power in the hands of a few participants. Surprisingly, the Yukon Water Board, an administrative tribunal with strict procedural requirements, offered the strongest opportunity for Aboriginal and conservation groups to raise their water concerns. The most important finding is the erosion of the environmental protection function of the state, which is obscured by this policy drift.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0360.030
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207