MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324443244 · doi:10.1080/07900627.2016.1159543

Will the energy industry drain the water used for agricultural irrigation in the Yellow River basin?

2016· article· en· W2324443244 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Water Resources Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEnergy Foundation
KeywordsAgricultureStructural basinNexus (standard)Water resource managementDrainage basinIrrigationWater-energy nexusEnvironmental scienceFarm waterWater useWater energyWater conservationFood energyWater resourcesGeographyEcologyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article employs the case of the Yellow River basin to advance understanding of the water–energy–food nexus by demonstrating how the country’s energy and agriculture sectors are competing for limited water supplies and by quantifying the future water demands in the two sectors. The results show that in 2030 the water demands for food and energy are likely to increase by less than 4 km3 and 1 km3, respectively, in the Yellow River basin. The analysis suggests that agricultural water savings and inter-basin water transfers are the main ways to ensure sufficient water flows through the basin to fulfil demand for both sectors while preserving the natural ecosystems.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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