REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT INACTION AND ITS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES: TWO CASE STUDIES OF FAILED WATER MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES IN ALBERTA, CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the province of Alberta, Canada, exploring new strategies to improve water management has become necessary.One such strategy involved improvements to the water transfer system and a second involved the creation of a water sharing strategy within a regional partnership.Despite the prospect of improving water management, proposed advancements to the water transfer system were not implemented, and the regional partnership floundered when it bifurcated along urban and rural lines.This study focused on these two failed attempts to improve water management as case studies, highlighting a possible role the provincial government could have played in enhancing water management.The first case study found that the politically-imbued nature of water management presented the greatest impediment to government implementing changes to the water transfer system.The second case study uncovered a host of measures the government could have undertaken to provide leadership and support but failed to do so.In both instances, important opportunities to improve water management failed, in part due to the politicization of water on the one hand, and government's unwillingness to provide leadership and support on the other.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".