Two-stage water resources allocation negotiation model for transboundary rivers under scarcity
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
In this article, the bankruptcy theory and bargaining games are used to construct a two-stage water resources allocation negotiation model (TSANM). A Nash-bargaining game model is used for the initial allocation, followed by an adjustment stage which considers factors such as water circumstances, water satisfaction, water risk, and water efficiency. The TSANM systematically considers the multi-dimensional attributes of water resources in the allocation process and may likely increase the participation of riparian countries. The proposed method is applied to allocate the contested water capital of the Tigris-Euphrates River. This gives initial allocation to Turkey, Syria, and Iraq of 30.00%, 22.00%, and 48.00%, respectively, and adjusted allocation of 24.98%, 21.30%, and 53.72%. Through collective bargaining and group negotiation, the stability and acceptability of allocation are effectively improved, absolute egalitarianism and utilitarianism are both avoided, and instead objectivity and fairness are emphasized in the water resources allocation process.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it