Sustainable Surface Water Storage Development Pathways and Acceptable Limits for River Basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the questions of acceptable upper limits for storage development and how best to deploy storage capacity in the long-term planning of built surface water storage in river basins. Storage-yield curves are used to establish sustainable storage development pathways and limits for a basin under a range of environmental flow release scenarios. Optimal storage distribution at a sub-basin level, which complies with an identified storage development pathway, can also be estimated. Two new indices are introduced—Water Supply Sustainability and Environmental Flow Sustainability—to help decide which pathways and management strategies are the most appropriate for a basin. Average pathways and conservative and maximum storage limits are illustrated for two example basins. Conservative and maximum withdrawal limits from storage are in the range of 45–50% and 60–65% of the mean annual runoff. The approach can compare the current level of basin storage with an identified pathway and indicate which parts of a basin are over- or under-exploited. A global storage–yield–reliability relationship may also be developed using statistics of annual basin precipitation to facilitate water resource planning in ungauged basins.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".