MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071169011

Review of <i>Eau Canada: The Future of Canada's Water</i>. Edited by Karen Bakker.

2008· article· en· W7071169011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)SummitCivil societyCorporate governanceEarth SummitSustainability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Karen Bakker has assembled an impressive list of contributors from academia and civil society, including internationally renowned physical and social scientists and prominent former civil servants. Lavishly referenced and weighing in at a hefty 400-plus pages, the book is broken into five main sections on current governance systems, jurisdictional fragmentation, privatization and markets, pathways to better management, and worldviews. Despite its heft, Eau Canada is a compelling read. A key message repeated in several chapters is that the federal government has largely ignored the principles set out in its own 1987 Federal Water Policy, which declared an overall objective of encouraging "the use of freshwater in an efficient, and equitable manner consistent with the social, economic, and environmental needs of present generations." A related point-though not commented on by any of the volume's contributors-is that the federal government has also failed to meet its international commitment to develop national Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) policies, made at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.007

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207