Role of a central administrator in managing water resources: The case of the Israeli water commissioner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water managers are usually implicitly assumed to be public servants whose sole purpose is to manage water in the best possible way for the public good. Yet water managers, as all bureaucrats, have interests, ideas, beliefs, and constituencies. This paper investigates whether and how differences between water managers affect the management of water resources and especially their action in face of scientific uncertainty. Israel has an exceptionally centralized national water system. The water commissioner entrusted with operating and regulating this system has wide‐ranging power to allocate water among users and to determine the rate of abstraction from the various water resources. The water allocations and abstraction policies of different water commissioners in Israel are analyzed. It is shown that the tenure of a water commissioner is a significant explanatory variable of water resource management, controlling for variations in precipitation and state of the water resources. A more detailed analysis of their abstraction decisions shows that different water commissioners followed distinctly different policies under similar conditions. It is suggested that a stricter checks and balances system may attenuate these intertenure variations in policies.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".