Urban water security assessment: investigating inequalities using a multi-scale approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Water security is a multi-faceted concept that encompasses dimensions such as water quantity, quality, human health, well-being, water hazards, and governance. The evaluation of water security is an important step towards understanding and improving it, particularly in urban settings where disparities resulting from unequal distribution of population and resources are present and often evade citywide assessments. To address the diversity of the urban space, we propose a multi-level assessment approach based on downscaling the spatial dimension. Using a comprehensive indicator-based framework, we evaluate the city of Campinas in Brazil across citywide and intra-city scales. Employing the Theil index to measure inequality, the results reveal nuanced disparities less apparent at broader scales. Despite an overall favourable water security condition, spatial heterogeneity is still noticeable in the urban area of Campinas. The methodology highlights different aspects, such as vegetation cover, social green areas, and wastewater collection, which are inequitably distributed in the urban area. This integrated approach, linking inequality and water security assessment, has the potential to unveil specific needs within urban areas, helping guide targeted interventions to improve water security levels for all.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".