Towards watershed governance: emerging lessons from community-based water governance approaches in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research project explores watershed governance approaches in British Columbia in order to assess the implications of the watershed scale for the governance of local water resources. Specifically the research objectives are to: characterize watershed governance approaches in selected communities as exemplified in (though not limited to) recent watershed management planning activities in British Columbia analyze and compare selected examples in terms of governance changes, as well as barriers and enabling factors to watershed governance, and explore the implications of the watershed scale for governance, including its relevance to water governance principles and a conceptual framework. The Cowichan, Kiskatinaw, and Nicola River watersheds were selected for this study, and data gathered through a document review and key informant interviews in each case study watershed. The data were subsequently analyzed using a content analysis approach, and findings presented and discussed in relation to the literature. Major barriers identified in the research include restricted local mandates (for water management) and/or a lack of mechanisms for local collaboration and input into decision-making, as well as funding constraints and access to watershed-specific information. Enabling factors identified included leadership from local governments, community and stakeholder groups, as well as cooperation from stakeholders and the provincial government through resourcing and partnerships. The watershed scale was found to have complicated inhibiting and enabling roles in governance approaches, which are discussed, as are its implications for commonly accepted water governance principles. Additional governance considerations for watershed-based approaches are proposed in relation to a conceptual framework. --Leaf vii.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".