Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preoccupation of economists with matters of efficiency helps to explain why matters of economic equity have been neglected.Further, the fact that desirable patterns of equity cannot be identified scientifically constrains economists from making normative judgments about equity.The fact that policymakers are frequently disinterested in equity matters means that economists tend to look elsewhere within their field for interesting questions to pursue.Two case study examples illustrate how the resolution of equity issues can be joined with solutions to other water management problems.The first case study, Northern Voices, focuses on the making of land and water policy in an area at considerable risk from the development of the Alberta, or Athabasca, tar sands and other upstream mining.Policy options which acknowledge, rather than ignore, the preferences of First Nations aboriginal peoples of the Northwest Territories would protect environmental assets which provide significant environmental services for all residents of the Western Hemisphere.The second case study concerns the Colorado River, and exemplifies the problems of over-allocated river basins.Recent experience shows that conventional negotiating processes are unlikely to lead to reductions in water allocations.The significant claims of Native Americans to the waters of the Colorado could be settled and over-allocation managed by awarding basin tribes rights to much of the Colorado River and authorizing them to auction water to the highest bidder through a Colorado River Water Exchange.
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 | 0.033 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".