Co-creating water knowledge: a community perspective
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
Navigating the complexities of global and local water resources challenges requires collaboration and mutual learning among diverse knowledge systems and disciplines. However, Western philosophical approaches to generating knowledge have prevailed in water management and hydrology, often overlooking community priorities, practices and perspectives, and power asymmetries - including gender inequalities, racism, and colonial injustices. In this perspective paper, we explore the co-creation of water knowledge (CCWK) concept to value multiple and diverse forms of knowledge. We identify four overarching principles (inclusivity, openness, legitimacy, and actionability), highlighting the importance of establishing relationships and collaborative leadership, adopting key tools and techniques, and integrating knowledge for water resources management. Furthermore, we argue that prioritizing epistemic justice is essential for effective CCWK. To address these, we advocate for more interdisciplinary and reflexive research practices that challenge and disrupt Western scientific traditions shaped by functionalist and colonial legacies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it