Optimal water management and conflict resolution: The Middle East Water Project
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
In many situations, actual water markets will not allocate water resources optimally, largely because of the perceived social value of water. It is possible, however, to build optimizing models which, taking account of demand as well as supply considerations, can substitute for actual markets. Such models can assist the formation of water policies, taking into account user‐supplied values and constraints. They provide powerful tools for the system‐wide cost‐benefit analysis of infrastructure; this is illustrated by an analysis of the need for desalination in Israel and the cost and benefits of adding a conveyance line. Further, the use of such models can facilitate cooperation in water, yielding gains that can be considerably greater than the value of the disputed water itself. This can turn what appear to be zero‐sum games into win‐win situations. The Middle East Water Project has built such a model for the Israeli‐Jordanian‐Palestinian region. We find that the value of the water in dispute in the region is very small and the possible gains from cooperation are relatively large. Analysis of the scarcity value of water is a crucial feature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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