Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to explore the legal instruments used to combat the phenomenon of water grabbing and the potential for its use by affected individuals and communities. Evidence will be provided for the recognition of water citizenship to combat the phenomenon of water grabbing. A tentative solution proposed in this article is to identify and stimulate this new form of citizenship, where individual participants may contribute to creating a new conscience by recognizing the right and the duty of citizens. A deductive methodology is used, based on evidence arising from descriptive, bibliographical, and documentary research. Particularly, using specialized doctrine and legal instruments that allow a better understanding of the topic. The first section presents the characteristics and main implications of water grabbing. The second section introduces the theoretical construction of new citizenship as an instrument to combat the phenomenon of water grabbing. In the final section, the article presents an analysis of the Water War in Bolivia and provides evidence to implement the right and duty of participation for the right of access to water.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".