MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099817644

Learning with local help: expanding the dialogue on climate change and water management in the Okanagan Region, British

2006· article· en· W7099817644 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistic research and analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeStakeholderStakeholder engagementRelevance (law)Citizen journalismAdaptation (eye)Resource (disambiguation)Water resources
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The research activity described in this report is a comprehensive regional assessment of the impacts of climate change on water resources and options for adaptation in the Okanagan Basin. The ultimate goal of the project is to develop integrated climate change and water resource scenarios to stimulate a multistakeholder discussion on the implications of climate change for water management in the region. The paper describes two main objectives: (a) providing a set of research products that will be of relevance to regional interests in the Okanagan, and (b) establishing a methodology for participatory integrated assessment of regional climate change impacts and adaptation that could be applied to climate-related concerns in Canada and other countries. This collaborative study has relied on field research, computer-based models, and dialogue exercises to generate an assessment of future implications, and to learn about regional views on the prospects for adaptation. Along the way, it has benefited from strong partnerships with governments, researchers, local water practitioners, and user groups. Building on the scenario-based study components, and a series of interviews and surveys undertaken for the water management and adaptation case study components, a set of stakeholder dialogue sessions were organized which focused on identifying

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLinguistic research and analysisFrench-language works237,207