MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125013886

Water Shortages, Water Allocation and Economic Growth: The Case of China

2006· article· en· W3125013886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiangming Fang, Terry L. Roe, Rodney B.W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueConference Papers · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenminbiPer capitaEconomicsWelfareWater scarcityChinaQuarter (Canadian coin)Agricultural economicsPopulationWater resourcesGeographyMonetary economicsExchange rateMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current projections indicate that by 2025, water scarcity will affect over one quarter of the world’s population. This suggests that the need to manage water more efficiently will become more pressing during the next few years as the demand for water increases along with the expansion of economies and their populations. This paper investigates the economic impacts of efficient intraregional and/or inter-regional water reallocation, and examines their corresponding economic gains. A Ramsey-type growth model of a small, open, competitive economy is fitted to year 2000 Chinese data andthe empirical model is used to perform policy experiments. Within region water reallocation increases per-capita Chinese GDP by about 1.5% per year over the period 2000-2060. The aggregate potential welfare gain due to this reallocation is 1002.51 billion RMB. Transferring water from southern to northern China via the South-North Water Transfer Project, on average, has a smaller impact on per-capita GDP over the period 2000-2060, with an aggregate welfare gain of 557.23 billion RMB. Combining intra-regional and inter-regional water reallocations, on average, increases per-capita GDP by 0.38% per year over the period and the aggregate welfare gain from this combination is 1148.06 billion RMB.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference PapersSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207