MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987653464

Towards democratizing water quality monitoring processes for the lower Grand River and nearshore Lake Erie

2021· dissertation· en· W6987653464 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Resources and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualityIndigenousContext (archaeology)Corporate governanceWatershedBenthic zoneFreshwater ecosystemCladophoraLimnologyWater securityEcosystem
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freshwater quality issues are among the most pressing challenges of our time. Such issues are increasingly complex and tend to recur when we fail to acknowledge the interacting stressors that influence them. One example of a recurring issue is the prolific growth of Cladophora (a benthic nuisance alga) in the eastern basin of Lake Erie. Water managers thought they had corrected the issue by controlling nutrient loading from the 1970s to the1990s; however, the Cladophora issue returned in the mid-2000s and has persisted due to new factors changing the way the ecosystem works. The Grand River in Southern Ontario remains Lake Erie’s largest contributor of nutrients in Canada, and so is the focus of current management efforts. Problems like this, which are caused by several interacting factors in a given space over time, are known as cumulative effects. 
\n
\nMuch of the literature on cumulative effects and/or water quality monitoring in this dissertation reflects conventional practice focused on the perspectives of water scientists and managers; however, this dissertation does not replicate this approach. Instead, the social-ecological context surrounding freshwater quality monitoring in the study area is critically considered by incorporating diverse community perspectives alongside conventional perspectives. In the study area, Indigenous communities have treaty rights to participate in the governance of the watershed (which sits entirely within the Haldimand Tract), but these communities – like others – have not been engaged as partners in water quality monitoring or management. One reason for this is that community and Indigenous knowledges often come in different formats than conventional scientists are used to dealing with, and so these forms of community ‘data’ are not easily integrated with conventional data. As Canada moves towards a mandate for reconciliation with Indigenous communities, ignoring the challenge of bringing together different ‘ways of knowing’ is no longer acceptable. Inspired by the Cladophora challenge and the need to diversify monitoring practice, this research strives to answer the following question: How can cumulative effects water quality monitoring be enabled and involve diverse perspectives in the Grand River-Lake Erie interface?
\n
\nThis research encourages the democratization of water quality monitoring to ensure more diverse persons can participate in the gathering of water quality information and that their diverse ways of knowing may supplement conventional science in management and decision-making. In other words, this dissertation explores approaches for diversifying perspectives that contribute to our understanding of freshwater quality in the study area. A multimethod approach to research was undertaken to explore what may be done differently. Methods used in this research include a systematic review of monitoring programs (Chapter 3), key informant interviews (Chapter 4), in-person and online workshops (Chapters 5, 7, and 8), and artistic research (Chapter 6) – a new approach in the context of water quality monitoring and management in the study area. First, the systematic review of monitoring programs highlighted aspects of current monitoring to maintain and improve upon. Then, key informant interviews raised 106 strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as well as 51 recommendations. I also discuss a culture shift towards more holistic thinking and more collaborative water governance, which study participants deemed necessary to develop a strong and resilient cumulative effects monitoring program. To enable this culture shift, two examples of artistic research were implemented to demonstrate potential approaches for diversifying practice. Following, eight recommendations are provided for implementing cumulative effects monitoring in the study area. 
\n
\nThe multimethod approach results in a framework for collaboration (i.e., organizational structure and process framework) to enable more diverse and collaborative water quality monitoring in the study area that contributes to our ability to understand and address cumulative effects. The proposed framework is community-led (whether catalyzed by community members or invited by government) and incorporates equal weighting of Indigenous and western priorities and monitoring indicators – a unique and potentially transformative contribution to literature and practice. The use of artistic research as an equitable means of community involvement is also new in the study area. Finally, because involving diverse persons to contribute their perspectives demanded the development of different approaches than currently practiced, the research process and its process-related lessons and recommendations may contribute to raising the standard for future research and practice in water quality monitoring.
\n
\nThis research also has implications that extend beyond strengthening the practice of water quality monitoring. The core outcomes of the later chapters – e.g., recommendations towards collaborative and community-based monitoring processes coupled with a culture shift regarding the creation and application of knowledge – would, if practiced, support at least three broader transformations in society: a formal sharing of responsibility over natural resources, increased collaboration that is mindful of diversity, and systemic changes in support of Canadian-Indigenous reconciliation. While many aspects of the future scenarios described in the concluding chapter are likely a generation away (or longer) and are far beyond the scope of any one thesis project, my hope is that possible actions catalyzed by this research and other efforts like it will collectively move society in a different, more equitable direction.

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 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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