A mathematical meta-model for assessing the self-sufficient water resources carrying capacity across different spatial scales in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrological modeling, water accounting assessments, and land evaluations are well-known techniques to carry out water resources carrying capacity (WRCC) assessments at multiple spatial levels. Using the results of an existing process-based model for assessing WRCC from very fine to national spatial scales, we propose a mathematical meta-model, i.e., a set of easily applicable simplified equations to assess WRCC as a function of high-quality agricultural lands for optimistic to realistic scenarios. These equations are based on multi-scale spatial results. Scales include national scale (L0), watersheds (L1), sub-watersheds (L2), and water management hydrological units (L3). Applying the meta-model for different scales could support spatial planning and water management. This method can quantify the effects of individual and collective behavior on self-sufficient WRCC and the level of dependency on external food resources in each area. Carrying capacity can be seen as the inverse of the ecological footprint. Hence, using publicly available data on the ecological footprint in Iran, the results of the proposed method are validated and give an estimation of lower and upper bounds for all biocapacity of the lands. Moreover, the results confirm the law of diminishing returns in the economy for the carrying capacity assessment across spatial scales. The proposed meta-model could be considered a complex manifest of land, water, plants, and human interaction for food production, and it could be used as a powerful tool in spatial planning studies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".