Hydrological Perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrologic sciences depend on data monitoring, analyses, and simulations of hydrologic processes to ensure safe, sufficient, and equal water distribution. These hydrologic data come from but are not limited to primary (lab, plot, and field experiments) and secondary sources (remote sensing, UAVs, hydrologic models) that typically follow FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable: ( go-fair.org )). Easy availability of FAIR data has become possible because the hydrology‐oriented organizations have pushed the community to increase coordination of the protocols for generating data and sharing model platforms. In addition, networking at all levels has emerged with an invigorated effort to activate community science efforts that complement conventional data collection methods. However, it has become difficult to decipher various complex hydrologic processes with increasing data. Machine learning, a branch of artificial intelligence, provide more accurate and faster alternatives to better understand different hydrological processes. The Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) framework provides a pathway for water users to include and respect diversity, equity, and inclusivity. In addition, ICONs support the integration of peoples with historically marginalized identities into this professional discipline of water sciences. This article comprises three independent commentaries about the state of ICON principles in hydrology and discusses the opportunities and challenges of adopting them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".