MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968732979 · doi:10.4296/cwrj300131

Economic Aspects of Irrigation Water Pricing

2005· article· en· W1968732979 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

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater pricingWater resourcesNatural resource economicsWater conservationIrrigationWater useEconomicsPopulationWater resource managementEnvironmental economicsBusinessEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, irrigation water consumes the bulk of renewable fresh water resources. As water demand increases with rising living standards and population growth, and as prospects for water diversion (extraction) are limited in some regions and nonexistent in others, the course of water policy left open is to increase efficiency of water use. This requires taking account of the full cost of water and the way to achieve this goal inevitably leads to some form of water pricing. Yet, water policy makers and economists are far from agreeing on what constitutes the "right" price of water in any given circumstance and how this price is to be charged. This paper aims to clarify and reconcile some of the conflicting views by discussing the economic aspects underlying irrigation water pricing and their implementation in practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.161 · 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