MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169223992 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.2004.1398441

Lexicographic minimax approach to fair water allocation problems

2005· article· en· W2169223992 on OpenAlexaff
Lizhong Wang, Liping Fang, Keith W. Hipel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexicographical orderMinimaxEquity (law)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationDrainage basinWater resourcesComputationOperations researchMathematicsAlgorithmGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When allocating water resources, fairness is an important issue. It is usually tackled with proportional or weighted sum multi-objective optimization methods, which are criticized as they do not comply with major principles of efficiency and equity. In this work, the lexicographic minimax solution concept for fair allocation is applied to water allocation problems. The applicability of the lexicographic minimax approach and computation algorithm is tested by a case study to allocate water rights for the demand sites sharing the Amu Darya River basin area located in the Aral Sea basin.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207