The edge of the petri dish for a nation: Water resources carrying capacity assessment for Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different methods have been proposed in population dynamics to estimate carrying capacity (K). This study estimates K for Iran, using three novel methods by integrating land and water limits into assessments based on Human Appropriated Net Primary Production (HANPP). The first method uses land suitability as the limiting resource. It gives theoretical estimates for K. The second method which is based on the first method, uses land suitability and water resources availability as limiting resources assuming highly efficient agriculture, also resulting in theoretical estimates for K. The third method is based on the second method assuming a lower, more realistic agricultural efficiency. The third therefore results in more realistic estimates. Four spatial hydrological scale levels were considered to estimate food production. Also, nine scenarios were defined: a reference one reflecting the current situation, five others for the first method, two for the second method, and finally, one scenario for the third method. Results show severe limitations on food production by the availability of suitable land, water availability, and crop productivity for agriculture. We estimated theoretical values for K using land and water limiting resources separately. Two realistic scenarios considering realistic agricultural productivity and water use at national and local levels were assessed, resulting in 35.5 and 20 million people, respectively. These are alarming values compared to the current population of Iran (84 million). Moreover, our conservative estimations are still higher than any assessment when considering social, economic, or political barriers. This research provides a systematic analysis of carrying capacity in Iran, showing the importance of food import on Iranians' lives, relevant to land, water, and food policies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".