MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Putting Suppliers on the Map:” Centering Upstream Voices in Water Funds Outreach

2021· article· en· W4200501427 on OpenAlex
Kelly Meza Prado, Leah L. Bremer, Sara Nelson, Kate A. Brauman, Amalia Morales Vargas, Rachelle K. Gould

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Water Research & Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinnesota Sea Grant, University of Minnesota
KeywordsUpstream (networking)OutreachDownstream (manufacturing)BusinessPublic relationsUpstream and downstream (DNA)Investment (military)Community engagementMarketingVariety (cybernetics)Political scienceEconomic growthEconomicsTelecommunicationsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As water funds and other watershed investment programs expand around the world, there is growing interest in designing equitable programs that provide both upstream and downstream benefits. While research demonstrates that diverse values underlie upstream participation, existing communication and outreach materials from non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, development banks, and others tend to highlight the goals of downstream actors (e.g., improving water supply for cities), with little attention to upstream perspectives. We present a case study in response to this gap, where we collaborated with a water fund and a river users association in Colombia to co‐produce a website entitled “Putting Suppliers on the Map” in which interviews and photography illuminate the perspectives of upstream participants and the intermediary organization. The website offers multiple lessons for communication and environmental education in water funds by shifting focus to the motivations of upstream participants, including trust‐building among upstream and downstream participants via intermediary actors, and informing downstream water users of the essential role of these processes for program success. Analyzing the website testimonials, we show that the vast majority of participants were motivated not only by overlapping instrumental and relational values associated with conservation, but also by a variety of personal and community goals. We found that the largest barrier to participation over time was the need to build trust between the water fund and rural communities and to align water fund goals with participants' motivations. By making visible the motivations and challenges of upstream actors, the website reverses the standard direction of environmental education (in which high‐level actors or downstream groups educate upstream residents). In‐so‐doing, the website aims to help downstream actors envision more productive and equitable ways of interacting with upstream 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.248 · 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