MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461769951 · doi:10.1007/s11676-016-0293-3

Integrated watershed management: evolution, development and emerging trends

2016· article· en· W2461769951 on OpenAlex
Guangyu Wang, Shari L. Mang, Haisheng Cai, Shirong Liu, Zhiqiang Zhang, Liguo Wang, John L. Innes

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forestry Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAsia-Pacific Network for Sustainable Forest Management and Rehabilitation
KeywordsWatershed managementWatershedEnvironmental resource managementResource management (computing)Adaptive managementEcosystem managementSustainable managementGovernment (linguistics)BusinessEnvironmental planningResource (disambiguation)Sustainable developmentSustainabilityEcologyGeographyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Watershed management is an ever-evolving practice involving the management of land, water, biota, and other resources in a defined area for ecological, social, and economic purposes. In this paper, we explore the following questions: How has watershed management evolved? What new tools are available and how can they be integrated into sustainable watershed management? To address these questions, we discuss the process of developing integrated watershed management strategies for sustainable management through the incorporation of adaptive management techniques and traditional ecological knowledge. We address the numerous benefits from integration across disciplines and jurisdictional boundaries, as well as the incorporation of technological advancements, such as remote sensing, GIS, big data, and multi-level social-ecological systems analysis, into watershed management strategies. We use three case studies from China, Europe, and Canada to review the success and failure of integrated watershed management in addressing different ecological, social, and economic dilemmas in geographically diverse locations. Although progress has been made in watershed management strategies, there are still numerous issues impeding successful management outcomes; many of which can be remedied through holistic management approaches, incorporation of cutting-edge science and technology, and cross-jurisdictional coordination. We conclude by highlighting that future watershed management will need to account for climate change impacts by employing technological advancements and holistic, cross-disciplinary approaches to ensure watersheds continue to serve their ecological, social, and economic functions. We present three case studies in this paper as a valuable resource for scientists, resource managers, government agencies, and other stakeholders aiming to improve integrated watershed management strategies and more efficiently and successfully achieve ecological and socio-economic management objectives.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.268 · 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