MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111353335 · doi:10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283393

Analyzing Cauvery River Dispute Using A System of Systems approach

2020· article· en· W3111353335 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransboundary Water Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWater resourcesStructural basinWater resource managementAgricultureConflict managementEnvironmental resource managementOperations researchGeographyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceGeologyGeomorphologyLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cauvery River, in the southern part of India, has experienced conflict about the right to use water for the last 130 years. Historically, the states/provinces in conflict have used the water from the river for agricultural purposes. In our research, we are developing a novel system of systems approach which takes in scenario-based methods for analyzing the conflict. We have employed four methodologies which feed into each other and overlap, namely, an expert elicitation, an integrated water resources management approach to generate the stream-flow requirements in the basin, a socio-political and economic impact approach which analyses the various relevant factors affecting the conflict in the region, and finally, a graph model to map out the progression of the conflict to potentially resolve. We present our methods and the preliminary findings in this paper.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransboundary Water Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207