Decolonizing Indigenous Drinking Water Challenges and Implications: Focusing on Indigenous Water Governance and Sovereignty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples in Canada have shown great strength and resilience in maintaining their cultures and ways of life to date in the face of settler colonialism. Centering the Water crises within Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, we explore the impacts these crises have on community members. Particularly, the continuous failure of the Canadian government to end the Water crises in remote Indigenous communities, Star Blanket Cree Nation, is investigated in this paper. What implications have these Water governance gaps had on Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty and self-determination? We adopted an Indigenist theoretical framework to guide the study. Additionally, a community-based participatory research approach was adopted. To achieve our research goals of investigating the implications of the current Water crises for Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, specific methods of sharing circles were used to gather knowledge from community members, Elders, and knowledge keepers. The research findings strongly highlight the strength and resilience shown by remote Indigenous communities in the face of the current Water crises and continuous government failure. Solving the current Water crises will involve remote Indigenous communities taking charge of their own Water governance through Indigenous-led Water governance systems. Additionally, taking steps to rebuild trust through genuine reconciliation will be key. Therefore, listening to remote Indigenous communities and taking collaborative action are fundamental.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".