MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781622276 · doi:10.1144/sp466.17

Global distribution and use of water from karst aquifers

2018· article· en· W2781622276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zoran Stevanović

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicKarst Systems and Hydrogeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKarstGeologyAquiferDistribution (mathematics)Hydrology (agriculture)GroundwaterGeomorphologyEarth sciencePaleontologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Karst aquifers are some of the most important and well-used sources of water worldwide. The tapping of karst waters for use as drinking water has been important in the historical and economic development of many karst regions. Recent studies have found that karstified rocks and aquifer systems cover c. 15% of the Earth's ice-free land. The greatest area of karst outcrops (>1 × 10 6 km 2 ) is in Russia, the USA, China and Canada. In the Mediterranean basin, groundwater is generally more abundant in karst than in other aquifers and has been extensively exploited. Karst groundwater is also widely used in the Middle East, China, North America, and northern and eastern Africa and is of crucial importance for the sustainable development of tourism and the economy. Karst aquifers currently supply c. 10% of the global population with drinking water and, in some zones, they are the only water resource available. However, the share of karst aquifers in the global supply of water will decrease with the predicted increase in population, concentrated in urban areas, and improvements in treatment technologies for water from other sources.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations81
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicKarst Systems and HydrogeologyFrench-language works237,207