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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water is the fulcrum on which life pivots—it is nonpareil in its importance for life on Earth. Climate change and the ever-expanding sphere of water commodification raise important ethical and sociopolitical questions and ramifications that are not reducible to only distributional concerns. Philosophical, normative work on climate change is prolific, but there is considerably less research on water issues specifically. Drawing on research in democratic political theory and environmental philosophy, I pose and address five main questions in this book: 1. What right, if any, do people have to water? 2. What are the putative harms of privatizing and commodifying water? 3. Should naturally occurring necessities for human life, like water, be considered owned in common as common territory or property? 4. If so, what are the most compelling normative and ethical grounds for justifying common ownership of water? 5. How might people’s rights to access to water be protected through legal and political means, and what role might local and transnational political activism play in hastening the implementation of such protections? In answering these questions, this book contributes to the burgeoning study of water ethics and justice within academic philosophy while working through the lens of non-ideal theory and a hybrid engaged philosophy. Communities subjected to water commodification, I argue, ultimately suffer a form of political domination insofar as they lack democratic decision-making power and control over this most vital of resources. I contend that deliberative democratic theory provides suggestive tools (at the level of norms and institutional design) for rethinking the governance of water. Drawing on contemporary water justice movements, I also show how anti-water-commodification struggles can utilize water recommoning practices to make water governance processes more deeply democratic. By way of five main case studies—Guelph-Wellington; Detroit, Flint and Baltimore; Cochabamba; Grenoble; and Kerala—I convey the global yet local, or glocal, scope of normative water issues. Additionally, I provide normative analyses of water governance and water injustice, and I show why the political harms of water commodification require democratic remedies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it