Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the policy claim that Alberta’s Water for Life strategy creates the possibility of a new water ethic in that province. The key problem for this dissertation is developing and defending a framework that would allow the Alberta case to be examined against like cases. In this context, the framework developed engages topics of: (1) territory and the state, (2) the effects of classification systems on policy claims regarding water abundance, water scarcity and water security, and (3) the normative role of decision-making structures on water management and planning. In this sense, the framework developed provides for the possibility of examining the water ethics of places comparable to Alberta. In short: a framework to analyze the water ethic(s) of state jurisdictions. As the water ethics framework is developed, the dissertation draws on archival research, a modified content analysis of Albertan policy documents and semi-structured interviews (n=25) with governance practitioners. The key contribution of this dissertation is the water ethics framework and its utility in explaining how changes in modern water policy affect governance norms. In particular, the framework offers the opportunity to interpret the water ethics of state jurisdictions in co-evolutionary terms, which allows the spatial and temporal changes wrought within modernity to be seen for their reciprocal effects. That is, the framework allows for the examination of how the new water ethic in Alberta’s Water for Life strategy defends and departs from the existing one.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".