MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135351749 · doi:10.3390/w13050717

Water Insecurity in Ontario First Nations: An Exploratory Study on Past Interventions and the Need for Indigenous Water Governance

2021· article· en· W3135351749 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Arsenault

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousWater securityGovernment (linguistics)Corporate governanceExploratory researchPolitical sciencePsychological interventionEconomic growthWork (physics)Public administrationEnvironmental resource managementBusinessPublic relationsSociologyWater resourcesPsychologySocial scienceEconomicsEngineeringFinanceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2018, I began an exploratory study involving fourteen Ontario First Nation participants that examined some First Nation water security challenges and opportunities. In acknowledgment that many of the government assessments, reports, and investments to date have failed, this study aims to determine the causes of the water crisis as well as potential solutions by sharing Indigenous perspectives and recommendations on water governance and security. During the study, Indigenous participants were asked interview questions regarding their water and wastewater systems, their historical and current water security conditions, and if they had recommendations for achieving water security in First Nations. The analysis from these interviews demonstrated that there were ten different themes for water security and insecurity in First Nation communities as well as a set of four recommendations shared by the fourteen participants. The participant recommendations are: (1) that Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Indigenous laws be included in water security initiatives and water governance; (2) that provincial and federal governments work with Indigenous communities on their water security challenges and opportunities; (3) that First Nation leadership develops and implements community water protection plans; (4) that Indigenous communities establish an oversight committee or body for monitoring tourist ventures and extractive development projects such as mining on their territories. This paper will also discuss how an Indigenous research paradigm can be applied during the research process to ensure that the information is captured from the Indigenous perspectives of the participants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207