Now you see me, now you don’t: the role and relevance of paradigms in water governance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current understandings of water governance rely on a multitude of paradigms, defined as normative ideas collectively held by actor groups. These ideas shape how water challenges are framed and addressed; however, the ways in which paradigms influence governance processes and evolve across contexts remain underexplored. Reflecting on the role of paradigms in water governance enables a better understanding of the driving forces behind the implementation of certain water governance arrangements, their international spread, and what interests, politico-economic stakes or power dynamics are at play. This agenda-setting paper is a first attempt to bring together diverse insights on the role and functions of paradigms from various conceptual lenses to inspire more reflexive scholarly engagement with paradigms. Our approach is based on a four-year, iterative, interdisciplinary collaboration involving workshops and virtual labs with scholars from diverse backgrounds. From this process, we identify ten key agenda items for future research. These items highlight critical gaps and recommendations for scholars in the water governance field—such as the underexplored role of paradigms in shaping power relations, the neglect of contextual variation, and the marginalization of alternative epistemologies- which may also hold relevance for practitioners at times. Together, they provide both a conceptual foundation and practical direction for scholars and practitioners seeking to better understand and navigate the paradigm-driven dynamics of water governance.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it