Resilient water infrastructure partnerships in institutionally complex systems face challenging supply and financial risk tradeoffs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As regions around the world invest billions in new infrastructure to overcome increasing water scarcity, better guidance is needed to facilitate cooperative planning and investment in institutionally complex and interconnected water supply systems. This work combines detailed water resource system ensemble modeling with multiobjective intelligent search to explore infrastructure investment partnership design in the context of ongoing canal rehabilitation and groundwater banking in California. Here we demonstrate that severe tradeoffs can emerge between conflicting goals related to water supply deliveries, partnership size, and the underlying financial risks associated with cooperative infrastructure investments. We show how hydroclimatic variability and institutional complexity can create significant uncertainty in realized water supply benefits and heterogeneity in partners' financial risks that threaten infrastructure investment partnership viability. We demonstrate how multiobjective intelligent search can design partnerships with substantially higher water supply benefits and a fraction of the financial risk compared to status quo planning processes. This work has important implications globally for efforts to use cooperative infrastructure investments to enhance the climate resilience and financial stability of water supply systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".