Socio-hydrology modelling for an uncertain future, with examples from the USA and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Socio-hydrology brings an interest in human values, markets, social organizations and public policy to the traditional emphasis of water science on climate, hydrology, toxicology and ecology. It also conveys a decision focus in the form of decision support tools, stakeholder engagement and new knowledge about the science–policy interface. This paper demonstrates how policy decisions and human behaviour can be better integrated into climate and hydrological models to improve their usefulness for decision support. Examples from SW USA and western Canada highlight uncertainties, vulnerabilities and critical tradeoffs facing water decision makers in the face of rapidly changing environmental and societal conditions. Irreducible uncertainties in downscaled climate and hydrological models limit the usefulness of climate-driven, predict-and-plan methods of water resource planning and management. Thus, it is argued that such methods should be replaced by approaches that use exploratory modelling, scenario planning and risk assessment in which the emphasis is on managing uncertainty rather than on reducing it. Model fusion supports all of these processes in integrating human and biophysical aspects of water systems, allowing policy impacts to be quantified and clarified, and fostering public engagement with water resource modelling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".