Solving the Food-Water-Energy Nexus One Step at a Time: Modernizing Irrigated Agriculture in Hood River, Oregon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food, water, and energy resources are critical to human survival. They are also interdependent. In the world of traditional irrigated agriculture in the US West, especially in arid or semi-arid areas, the Food-Water-Energy Nexus is undergoing severe challenges, including population growth, significant water scarcity, growing demands for environmental and species protection, downward pressure on commodity pricing from globalization, increasing demand and higher costs for energy, and the challenge of climate change. This wicked problem of food, water, water rights, energy, farmers, fish/ecology, and climate change is threatening not only the ability to restore and preserve the stream flows necessary to meet ecological needs, but also the legally mandated flows to senior water users and the economic viability of working rural agricultural landscapes. A case study of the Farmer’s Irrigation District in Oregon illustrates how a growing number of Western US irrigation district are modernizing their irrigation systems, labeled here as the Integrated Hydro-Irrigation-Restoration Model, by tapping the power of rivers to fuel new low carbon “small” hydropower facilities and pressurize water deliveries, while simultaneously taking measures to save water, promote less fertilizer usage, increase instream flows, and improve environmental outcomes. The new model is necessarily more responsive to the policy demands emanating from policymakers and environmentalists seeking redress for all parts of the Food-Water-Energy wicked problem, from carbon emissions to more environmentally and economically sustainable farming systems/communities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".