Response to Ofwat Consultation on Driving Transformational Innovation in the Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors welcome the opportunity to respond to this Ofwat consultation on collaborative innovation and the financial support targeted for it. We agree with Ofwat that a collaborative culture and financial ability are important factors driving innovation in the water sector. Collaborations between companies that are competitors are relatively rare in managing common-pool resources such as water. This response primarily offers learnings from a collaborative collective action among competing companies in Canada’s oil sands in 2012 (with water as one of the environmental priority areas), to shed light on some organisational rules underpinning such relationship and collaboration. We do also reflect on the financial mechanisms that Ofwat suggest for driving innovation, as well as consider the role and importance of regulation.
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 | 0.021 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.053 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.007 |
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".