Water is more than a resource: Indigenous Peoples and the right to water
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
Dominant narratives and policy processes addressing water insecurity, such as the Water Action Decade 2018–2028, usually neglect the power asymmetries underlying that insecurity. In this paper, we argue that the water problems we face are not merely about water supply or access, but also about the values we hold about water, and we turn to what we can learn from Indigenous Peoples' perspectives on water. We present how the dominant perspective of water as a commodity sits at the root of the water problems that we face. By contrast, Indigenous Peoples perspectives view water not as a resource to be commodified, but a good to be respected which demands responsibility from us. We explain how water values and the Indigenous communities that protect them are inextricably connected to land sovereignty, and thus how Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge carry solutions to the current global water crisis. However, we also note how the views of Indigenous Peoples and marginalised communities are often ignored, including through physical and technical exclusion, using the United Nations Water Action Decade as a case study. We conclude by arguing that collective initiatives to address the water crisis require significant amendments based on a redistribution of power to ensure that the voices and values of Indigenous Peoples are heard to achieve transformative change.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it