MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197877814 · doi:10.1080/07900627.2021.1964449

Comparative assessment of alternative water supply contributions across five data-scarce cities

2021· article· en· W3197877814 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

VenueInternational Journal of Water Resources Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater supplyClosing (real estate)Water scarcityBusinessResource (disambiguation)Water securityWater resourcesScarcitySupply and demandPotable waterEnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsWater resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEconomicsComputer scienceEnvironmental engineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternative water sources offer opportunities to contribute to the water supply to meet non-potable urban demand, closing water supply–demand gaps. Detailed assessments of these schemes are often data intensive, which can be a barrier in resource-scarce locations. A data-light approach is proposed and applied to assess the potential contribution of alternative water sources in five cities in the Global South, and to identify barriers preventing their widespread uptake. These barriers include perception, space, cost, home ownership and capacity constraints. This approach is applicable elsewhere, supporting assessment for city water planners/managers for preliminary planning to promote discussion on alternative sources to water security.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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