Collaborative management: A framework for source water protection in the Maitland Valley watershed, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Province of Ontario has introduced the 'Clean Water Act' as a means to protect sources of drinking water and implement the last of the Walkterton Inquiry recommendations. The 'Clean Water Act' is to be watershed-based with plan development facilitated by conservation authorities across the province. This thesis is a case study of the Maitland Valley watershed and investigates the potential for collaborative management as a framework for source water protection. Stakeholder analysis methodology is used to examine the social network of the Maitland Valley watershed for source water protection, and analyze the nature of the social network with regard to relationships and communication. Social network maps were generated to conceptualize the presence of relationships, both supportive and conflictive, among the stakeholders groups. Patterns of interest, communication and learning, collaboration and partnership are detailed. A conceptual framework that proposes guiding principles for collaboration was derived from the literature. Based on the findings this thesis then reflects on the usefulness of these principles as a tool for the development of collaborative management. Suggestions for using a collaborative management framework for source water protection are then put forward.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".