MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353065041 · doi:10.2166/wcc.2023.362

Future water security under climate change: a perspective of the Grand River Watershed

2023· article· en· W4353065041 on OpenAlexaffabout
Baljeet Kaur, Narayan Kumar Shrestha, Uttam Ghimire, Pranesh Kumar Paul, Ramesh Rudra, Pradeep Goel, Prasad Daggupati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Climate Change · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater scarcityWater securityClimate changeWatershedWater resourcesStreamflowEnvironmental scienceWater resource managementScarcityWatershed managementIrrigationHydrology (agriculture)GeographyEcologyDrainage basinGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate change poses a threat to the water security of the Grand River Watershed (GRW) by altering the precipitation patterns and other weather variables, which affect streamflow and freshwater availability. Therefore, in this study, a Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model for the GRW, Ontario, Canada, was used to assess the blue and green water scarcity for future periods for future sustainable management of freshwater resources in the region. The ensemble results predicted a warmer and wetter future for the GRW. The ensemble model result, when considering both emission scenarios and future periods, showed that blue water (BW) is projected to increase by 23–40% while green water storage (GWS) is projected to experience an overall decrease (2–8%). The results suggested that BW may become more scarce compared to green water in the future. The scarcity of BW is primarily due to the projected increase in population growth and water demand in the watershed. Green water scarcity in some regions indicated that changes in irrigation might be needed in the future in some parts of the watershed. The results indicate that the careful planning is essential for future water management in GRW.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and Climate ChangeSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207