MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407969742 · doi:10.2166/wp.2025.285

Collaboration and coordination in the United Nations 2023 Water Conference commitments

2025· article· en· W4407969742 on OpenAlexaff
J. Leah Jones-Crank

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransboundary Water Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEngineeringBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The United Nations 2023 Water Conference brought together world leaders to commit to addressing water challenges and achieving water and sanitation for all. The conference resulted in the development of the Water Action Agenda (WAA), a collection of commitments from governments and organizations to address water issues. Achieving water security requires solutions that involve cross-sectoral coordination and collaboration between water and other resource governance sectors. Therefore, this research evaluates the collaboration and cross-sectoral coordination within the WAA through the lens of the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus to analyze the WAA commitments (n = 835). It quantitatively examines the amount of collaboration between organizations and the level of the multi-resource interconnections within the commitments. It then qualitatively analyzes how the WEF nexus is incorporated into the WAA. The results show that there is a high level of collaboration and multi-resource coordination across all the commitments and that the application of the WEF nexus includes increasing shifts from academic theorization toward implemented practice. However, limitations of the WAA are evident: there is limited accountability to ensure that commitments are fulfilled, and the commitments themselves may not represent the best actions to achieve water and sanitation for all.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueWater PolicySame topicTransboundary Water Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207