La gouvernance de l’eau au Canada: Un regard juridique et épistémologique sur l’éminente complexité de sa mise œuvre (Water Governance in Canada: A Legal and Epistemological View of the Eminent Complexity of Its Implementation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Les problematiques de l’eau sont aujourd’hui une preoccupation concernant tout un chacun, suscitant l’interet public et prenant une part toujours plus importante chez les erudits. En effet, en deux decennies, la gouvernance et la gestion de l’eau se sont mutees en imperatif contemporain. Du fait de ce nouveau statut de principe fondamental de nos societes modernes, le droit a consequemment l’eminente responsabilite de faciliter l’accomplissement de ces imperatifs. Toutefois, une telle perspective est souvent confrontee a une realite complexe. Le contexte canadien ne fait pas exception a ce constat. Effectivement, le Canada fait face a une situation d’inadequation et d’inadaptation de sa gouvernance et de son droit de l’eau. Cependant, il est possible d’emettre l’hypothese selon laquelle de telles considerations reposent sur la conception theorique traditionnelle que nous avons de l’eau. En reorientant cette conception epistemologique moderne de l’eau, il est alors envisageable d’identifier un questionnement intrinseque : pourquoi est-ce que l’eau est une source constante de division et de desunification ? Plus precisement, en explorant cette interrogation, il devient possible de penser differemment l’eau, sa gouvernance et son droit. English Abstract: Issues surrounding water are nowadays a common and consistent reality, cultivating public interest and provoking debates within the scholar community. As a matter of fact, water governance and water management both became, in the last two decades, a predominant approach leading to a contemporary imperative. With respect to these – new – fundamental principles of our modern societies, law has the eminent responsibility to facilitate their achievement. However, such a prospect often faces a complex reality. The Canadian situation is no exception to this statement. Canada is de facto being challenged with intricate circumstances in which water governance and water law appears to be inadequate and maladjusted. Nonetheless, it is to be assumed that such a consideration is based upon the traditional theoretical consideration we have about water itself. By redirecting this modern epistemological assumption of water, it is conceivable to identify an intrinsic question: why is water a constant source of division and disunion? Moreover, by exploring this interrogation, it becomes possible to think about water, its governance and its law, from a different perspective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".