Who Fought For Water and What Did They Fight For? A Comparative Analysis of Open Water Conflicts in Four South American Countries between 2000 and 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water conflicts have mostly been studied by focusing on case studies or by comparing conflicts sharing a common issue (like privatization of water services, mining contamination or management of water services). This article takes a different standpoint by at once considering water as a unique and multidimensional object of conflict. Its first main contribution is to present an overview of open social conflicts related to (any dimension of) water that took place in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia and Peru between January 2000 and December 2011. This overview is useful to put in perspective in-depth studies of specific conflicts and the rise of “water crises” in the 2010s. Second, the article contributes to the understanding of how and why the actors mobilizing and the dimensions of water under conflict vary overtime and between countries. The empirical analysis builds on a systematic double review of the chronologies of social conflicts published by the Observatorio Social de América Latina of the Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".