Q81: evaluación económica de proyectos hidráulicos, incluyendo las presas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La evaluacion economica de los proyectos de presas es un tema de vital y decisiva importancia en los analisis de los proyectos hidraulicos, y de sus alternativas en la gestion de los recursos hidricos. En estas evaluaciones se cuantifican en terminos monetarios y economicos los beneficios netos que las presas y embalses producen para el bienestar de la sociedad, que, en general, muestran el papel esencial que desempenan las presas en el desarrollo economico y social, y en la lucha frente a la pobreza. En este articulo se describe el desarrollo de la Q.81 del XXI Congreso Internacional de Grandes Presas de Montreal, sobre la EVALUACION ECONOMICA DE PROYECTOS HIDRAULICOS, INCLUYENDO LAS PRESAS, analizando los informes presentados, la ponencia del Relator General, y las comunicaciones seleccionadas para su presentacion, dedicando una especial atencion a los informes y comunicaciones espanolas. Finalmente se sintetizan las conclusiones de las sesiones, obtenidas de la presentacion y discusion de los informes.
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 | 0.024 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".