A Contested Waterscape: The Public’s Diminished Participation in Ontario’s Water Management Planning Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Guelph, Ontario, is one of a few cities in Canada that relies solely on groundwater for drinking water. City officials anticipate that the municipality will experience a water deficit in the near future. In response to water security issues residents have actively engaged in the state-sanctioned water source protection committee. This article explores the water management planning process upheld by Ontario’s Clean Water Act , 2006, and examines the question: Is the Clean Water Act ’s participatory mode to water governance inclusive of “environmental, health, and other interests of the public”? The analysis of this question engages with the political ecology literature and, in particular, Linton and Budds’s three-part hydrosocial cycle framework. It is argued that the technology of regulatory law (i.e., the Clean Water Act , 2006) constructs the power dynamics and social relations within the state-sanctioned water committee resulting in the weakening of the environmental interests expressed by the public.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".