MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1773450182

Adaptive Watershed Planning and Climate Change

2010· article· en· W1773450182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Craig Anthony Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershed managementWatershedAdaptive managementEnvironmental resource managementEcosystem managementEcosystem servicesClimate changeWater resourcesAdaptation (eye)EcosystemEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningBusinessComputer scienceEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few phenomena make case for ecosystem management quite as well as climate change, hydrological effects of which will upset settled expectations and require water institutions to adapt. The effects of climate change will be felt at multiple hydrological, geographic, and institutional scales that transcend specific water sources or political and legal jurisdictions. Moreover, effects will be uncertain, complex, and frequently changing. Thus, water resources should be managed at watershed scales, and this management should use management methods of flexibility, experimentation, and learning iterative processes of managing environmental conditions and programs. However, ecosystem management concept has had unfortunate effect of de-emphasizing or even rejecting role of in shaping relationships between human actions and ecological conditions. Too little attention has been given to role of in adaptation and ecosystem management. A concept of adaptive planning is not only consistent with ecosystem management, but could actually improve ecosystem management methods and capacity of institutions to engage in ecosystem management effectively. Moreover, a growing number of watershed plans are exhibiting some characteristics of planning, particularly with respect to effects of climate change on watersheds and water resources. This article explores role of watershed in adapting to climate change. Adaptive watershed management requires use of methods, not merely ad hoc, reactive experimentalism and incrementalism. Without some process of planning, Charles Lindblom's of muddling through becomes the science of drifting along. Adaptive gives some direction and focus to ecosystem management activities. Furthermore, watershed can improve not only watershed management methods, but also content and effectiveness of watershed plans themselves. If watershed plans are to be useful, they must contemplate uncertainties associated with climate change and its effects. In addition to describing theory and features of and applying principles to watershed and management, this article also explores examples of watershed plans in U.S. and Canada that have addressed climate change and analyzes a number of issues in watershed planning, including barriers to, and opportunities for, increased and improved use of watershed to improve capacity of watershed institutions to adapt to climate change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→