Setting the System Boundaries of “Energy for Water” for Integrated Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies over the last two decades have addressed the “water-energy nexus,” generally defined as the inter-dependency between water and energy in their supply, processing, distribution, and use. The research community currently disaggregates the water-energy nexus into two components: “water for energy” and “energy for water.” While there seems to be clear consensus on the definition of “water for energy”—that is, water required for the extraction, processing, and transformation of energy as well as the irrigation of bioenergy—there has been less agreement on the definition and system boundaries of “energy for water.” Here we represent six integrated assessment modeling teams presently incorporating the hydrologic system and water demands into existing global models of energy, agriculture, land use, and climate. In this article, we propose system boundaries of “energy for water” that are appropriate for integrated energy and water modeling, and introduce a third category of processes that are relevant for the water-energy nexus, but that are not logically classified as either “water for energy” or “energy for water.”
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 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".