MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391679079 · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia4010022

Optimization Examples for Water Allocation, Energy, Carbon Emissions, and Costs

2024· article· en· W4391679079 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEnergy (signal processing)Carbon fibersGreenhouse gasNatural resource economicsComputer scienceEconomicsMathematicsGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of Water Resources Management (WRM) is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, realizing its direct connections with energy, food, and social and economic sciences, among others. Computationally, this leads to more complex models, wherein the achievement of multiple goals is sought. Optimization processes have found various applications in such complex WRM problems. This entry considers the main factors involved in modern WRM, and puts them in a single optimization problem, including water allocation from different sources to different uses and non-renewable and renewable energy supplies, with their associated carbon emissions and costs. The entry explores the problem mathematically by presenting different optimization approaches, such as linear, fuzzy, dynamic, goal, and non-linear programming models. Furthermore, codes for each model are provided in Python, an open-source language. This entry has an educational character, and the examples presented are easily reproducible, so this is expected to be a useful resource for students, modelers, researchers, and water managers.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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