Government and Community Responses to Drinking WaterChallenges and Crises in Rural Newfoundland and Labrador:Final Project Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated government and community responses to water crises in three rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador- Flat Bay, Black Tickle, Labrador and Steady Brook with the first two being Indigenous communities. Using a qualitative approach, we interviewed community leaders, volunteer water operators, and provincial government officials. The study made use of two different interview schedules to elicit the required responses using primarily close- and open ended questions. The study reveals that the term “water crisis’ is defined differently by each community and shaped by specific experiences of water insecurity; meanwhile, community definitions contrast with the provincial government’s restrictive definition. The study establishes that each of the communities has experienced water crisis relating to contamination, infrastructure, water shortages, and/or weather. Limited local capacities coupled with aging infrastructure are the major challenges that hinder the communities’ effective response to drinking water crises. Decentralization approaches to water policy has resulted in local communities being responsible for the management of drinking water systems; this is problematic and inappropriate for rural communities. Proposed long-term solutions include broader definitions of the term water crisis; development of a comprehensive provincial wide water management plan; the creation of community- or region-specific water emergency preparedness plans; the provision of adequate financial resources and consultation and participation of communities through the establishment of multi-level water management committees.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".