Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water is integral to Alberta’s economy, grounded in agriculture, power generation, extractive industry, tourism, and recreation. In 2003, the Government of Alberta released the Water for Life Strategy (the Strategy) amidst growing public concerns over multiple impacts on provincial water resources. The Strategy is a framework document guiding the development of watershed plans across the provincial landscape to be implemented by Watershed Protection and Advisory Committees (WPACs). This paper explores the extent to which First Nations in Alberta were included in the government’s development of the Strategy and in the implementation of the Strategy by the WPACs. Our research data was gathered through key informant interviews with WPAC personnel as well as content analysis of relevant planning documents from provincial and WPAC sources. The research results point to an absence of First Nations inclusion in both the development of the provincial water Strategy as well as the implementation of the Strategy through the WPAC policies and plans. The results also identify institutional gaps and opportunities by which the provincial government and the WPACs may engage more effectively and inclusively with Indigenous communities. From our analysis, we recommend a series of institutional arrangements to advance far greater inclusion of Indigenous voices and recognition of Indigenous peoples as rights-holders, in watershed planning in Alberta.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".