New modeling paradigms for assessing future irrigation storage requirements: a case study of the Western irrigation district in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
River basin planning in Alberta has relied on the use of computer modeling since the early 1980s. Typical modeling studies rely on a single time step operational framework, where water allocation decisions are made for individual model time steps, without taking into account seasonal forecasts or the corresponding demand hedging rules that are often implemented by farming communities. This kind of modeling often leads to premature depletion of reservoir storage during dry years, producing model results that represent worse decisions than those that irrigators would make by using the rule-of-thumb. This paper critically reviews the current modeling practice, and provides insight into possible improvements in modeling through the use of multiple time step optimization in combination with optimal demand hedging, which is found as part of the model solution. A case study focuses on potential storage expansions in the Western Irrigation District of Southern Alberta. Improvements with the multiple time step optimization approach also shed new light on important water management decisions made in the past and the value of a revised definition of irrigation failure criteria. Finally, the selected modeling approach reveals significant potential for capital cost savings related to future infrastructure development, and suggests that investing in digital infrastructure – better forecasting and reservoir management tools – may be more productive than investment in additional physical infrastructure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".