MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582911091

The role of Dutch expertise in Romanian water projects. Case study "Integrated water management for the Tecucel River Basin"

2012· article· en· W1582911091 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Management Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythFlash floodAgency (philosophy)Funding AgencyBusinessEnvironmental planningRomanianInternshipWater resource managementGeographyEnvironmental sciencePolitical sciencePublic relationsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floods are the most important natural risk in Romania. They occur almost on a yearly basis and cause major economic damage and casualties. The project ‘Integrated Water Management for the Tecucel River Basin’ was formulated in response to a flood in the city of Tecuci and its surroundings in 2007. Due to heavy rainfall, water levels on the small Tecucel River increased within a few hours. This caused a major flash flood that affected nearly 60% of Tecuci. At that time, a Romanian student did an internship at water board Hunze and Aa’s (WB H&A) in the North of the Netherlands. She informed employees and the management board of WB H&A about the flood. The water board decided to look for possibilities to do something to prevent the occurrence of similar floods in the future. As the floods also affected the delivery of drinking water and the treatment of wastewater, it decided to adopt an integrated approach. Together with five other organizations, it formulated a project that would improve the water system and living conditions in the Tecucel River Basin and enhance bilateral collaboration and knowledge transfer. Following an exploratory visit and a preparatory mission by Dutch experts (2007 and 2008), the Dutch team submitted a project proposal to the Dutch funding agency Partners for Water. At that time, the agency was not able to fund projects. Hence, the same proposal was submitted to the Netherlands Water Board Bank. This bank could cover up to 50% of the project costs. The remaining costs were covered by the Dutch organizations involved. This report presents the above-mentioned project as a case study within the context of a PhD research on the application of Dutch knowledge in Dutch-funded flood risk projects in Romania.

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 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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.257 · 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