Development of a dynamics-based model for analyzing strategic water–environmental conflicts: systems thinking instead of linear thinking
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new evolution in graph modeling for conflict resolution (GMCR), a robust methodology for conflict resolution, is presented in this research to incorporate the systems thinking concept into the conventional paradigm of GMCR so that the dynamic nature of water–environmental conflicts can be modeled, and better outcomes obtained. To achieve this objective, a methodology is developed in three phases: static, dynamic, and outcome-based analyses. To develop the methodology, the Tigris–Euphrates basin conflict in the Middle East over the past 30 years, as a real-life case study, is used to show the robustness and capabilities of the proposed approach. Finally, a sustainable resolution to the current conflict is proposed, and the results are discussed. The proposed methodology benefits from improving the existing and often static-based conflict resolution developments by considering the dynamic nature so that the true root causes of complex conflicts are addressed, better strategic insights achieved, and comprehensive resolution provided.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it