MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025695314 · doi:10.2166/wp.2013.140

The periurban water security problem: a case study of Hyderabad in Southern India

2013· article· en· W2025695314 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anjal Prakash

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsUrbanizationWater securityWater supplyGroundwaterPopulationWater resource managementGeographyWater resourcesIrrigationSurface waterRural areaEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringEconomic growthEngineeringEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2011 Census of India produced some interesting facts about the process of urbanisation in India. For the first time since Independence, the absolute increase in population is more in urban than in rural areas. The increase in urban areas has put pressure on the basic infrastructure, including access to water for both urban and periurban locations. Most Indian cities have formal water supply for only a few hours a day and only in limited areas. The question is – where are the remaining water requirements coming from? For much of India's ‘water history’, the focus has been on large-scale surface-water projects to provide access, focusing more on irrigation and neglecting sources within the city and the periurban areas. Over time an enormous informal groundwater market has arisen in several cities to bridge the demand–supply gap. This water demand is met through supplies of water through informal water markets. Water is sourced from the periurban regions, which are usually richer in surface water and groundwater. This paper focuses on the change process as witnessed by periurban areas with a case study of Hyderabad. This paper presents an overview of a trend that is leading to immense water insecurities due to a combination of issues.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater PolicySame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207