Computer Support for Implementation of a Systemic Approach to Water Conflict Resolution
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
Abstract Water is an important factor in conflicts among stakeholders at the local, regional, and even international level. Water conflicts have taken many forms, but they almost always arise from the fact that the freshwater resources of the world are not partitioned to match the political borders, nor are they evenly distributed in space and time. Two or more countries share the watersheds of 261 major rivers and nearly half of the land area of the world is in international river basins. Water has been used as a military and political goal. Water has been a weapon of war, and water systems have been targets during the war. A systemic approach has been taken in this research to approach resolution of conflicts over water. By helping stakeholders to explore and resolve the underlying structural causes of conflict our approach offers a significant opportunity for its resolution. We define the five main functional activities for assisting the conflict resolution process as: (i) communication; (ii) problem formulation; (iii) data gathering and information generation; (iv) information sharing; and (v) evaluation of consequences. A computerized technical support is developed in the form of the Conflict Resolution Support System (CRSS) for implementation of a systemic approach to water conflicts. Its principal components include an artificial intelligence-based communication system, a database management system, and a model base management system. At this stage of the development, the model base management system consists of tools for multipurpose reservoir operation, river flow routing, multi-criteria decision-making, spatial data analysis, and other general utilities. A hypothetical river basin with potential conflict between stakeholders with respect to water sharing and flood control is used to demonstrate the utility of the new approach and the computer system developed for its implementation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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