Drawing from Indigenous ontologies and practices to rethink European water policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this article is to begin a discussion of how Indigenous ontologies and practices might be brought to bear on water policy and management in Europe. Such a discussion represents an ironic historical shift in the sense that these ontologies and practices have survived and continue to evolve in countries that have been characterized by European colonization (i.e., Australia, Canada, US, New Zealand, countries of Africa and South America, and not excluding the Sámi people of northern Europe). Increasingly research and policy interest has been directed toward the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in water governance in some of these places, especially Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Here, we ask whether they might be a source of inspiration for rethinking the water policy in Europe. We argue that certain elements of Indigenous water knowledge and practices can be drawn from to reform European water policy on the ontological premise that people are part of nature and based on establishing and nurturing moral and legal relationships between water and people based on principles of respect and reciprocity.
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 | 0.047 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".