Resolving conflicts in water sharing: A systemic approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With industrial development and economic growth, conflicts over use and allocation of water have been increasing. Though diverse efforts have been made toward resolving conflicts through computer‐based models, its clear understanding is prerequisite for models to be effective. A systems view illuminates how people think and consequences of their thoughts and actions on results and thus helps to achieve sustainable solutions. This paper presents a systemic approach to assist stakeholders in two different jurisdictions in a hypothetical water resource system to resolve a potential water‐sharing conflict. A causal loop diagram developed provides an understanding of the conflict dynamics and feedback nature. A system dynamics simulation model developed fitting the causal diagram offers a significant opportunity to explore conflict's behavior and resolution with respect to final water allocations and time necessary to reach an agreement. The impact of initial aspiration, influence on system and struggle of stakeholders is discussed in detail.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it