MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406956557 · doi:10.5751/es-15613-300113

Great expectations for collective management: the mismatch between supply and demand for catchment groups

2025· article· en· W4406956557 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jim Sinner, Marc Tadaki, Margaret Kilvington, Edward Challies, Paratene Tane, Christina Robb

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEnvironmental resource managementDrainage basinCollective actionNatural resource economicsSupply and demandRiver managementDemand managementEnvironmental planningEconomicsGeographyPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, agri-environmental policies targeting individual farmers have made little progress on the problem of diffuse water pollution, leading to increased demand for collective approaches to manage cumulative effects. To understand the emerging supply of collective institutions to meet this demand, researchers have studied local initiatives in many countries. However, the challenges of crafting new collective institutions are still poorly understood. In Aotearoa New Zealand, many farmers have established catchment groups in response to regulation of farming practices and public concern about unhealthy waterways. These groups typically do not have the features commonly expected of collective management institutions, e.g., few have specific environmental objectives or agreed actions or practices to protect resource sustainability. Our research with catchment group leaders, Indigenous representatives, and policy actors revealed differences in their logics about and expectations of catchment groups. These differences have given rise to a mismatch between the type of collective action that is in demand by government and the type being supplied by catchment groups. To bridge the supply-demand gap, agencies should seek to better understand their own logics while acknowledging the importance of groups’ priorities, and support groups to articulate goals and strategies and how these relate to government objectives. Conversely, catchment groups can be equipped with tools and insights to help them better understand their own motivations and goals, and those of agencies and other actors, to help them navigate these complex ideas and relationships in challenging and changing environments. In settler-colonial landscapes, resources should also be provided for Indigenous groups to realize their own aspirations and to bring their genealogical narratives to these conversations. More generally, it is important for agencies and other observers to understand what motivates collective entities, rather than assume that they share the management logic that informs collective management as described in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and SocietySame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207