AGENDA: Indigenous Water Justice Symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples throughout the world face diverse and often formidable challenges of what might be termed “water justice.” On one hand, these challenges involve issues of distributional justice that concern Indigenous communities’ relative abilities to access and use water for self-determined purposes. On the other hand, issues of procedural justice are frequently associated with water allocation and management, encompassing fundamental matters like representation within governance entities and participation in decision-making processes. Yet another realm of water justice in which disputes are commonplace relates to the persistence of, and respect afforded to, Indigenous communities’ cultural traditions and values surrounding water—more specifically, the degree of recognition and solicitude given them in distributional rules, governance entities, decision-making processes, etc. These three dimensions of water justice find support in numerous domestic and international sources, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Hosted by the University of Colorado Law School on Monday, June 6 in Boulder, Colorado, the Indigenous Water Justice (IWJ) Symposium has been convened to address water justice-related challenges facing Australian Aboriginal communities within the Murray-Darling Basin, Canadian First Nations within the Columbia River Basin, and Native American Tribes within the Colorado and Columbia River Basins. The symposium will consist of three basin panels followed by an end-of-day synthesis panel. It will be bookended by a keynote address from Professor Charles Wilkinson during the morning, and a dinner reception hosted by the Native American Rights Fund. The symposium is an invitation-only event envisioned as an incubator for future actions and collaborations. The roughly 45 participants hail from nearly 20 Indigenous communities and organizations and faculties of approximately 15 academic institutions in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the United States, as well as governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations. Our core purpose is to foster dialogue and relationships aimed at promoting legal and policy reforms to achieve positive social change.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.023 |
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".