Unfulfilled water impact forecasts, plans and projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents a retrospective review of some forecasts, plans and projects of anthropogenic impact on water resources that did not materialize, were not implemented by the planned date or were incomplete. Values of full (water intake) and irrevocable water consumption for 2000, predicted in the 1960s and 1970s by well-known domestic and foreign researchers, are compared with the actual water consumption in 2000 in the world, the USA, and our country. It is shown that most of water consumption forecast parameters turned out to be significantly higher than the actual one, which gives reason to consider these forecasts were not borne out. In the Water Strategy of the Russian Federation, developed in 2009 for the period up to 2020, these values were also significantly overestimated (by tens of percent). Incomplete implementation of various programs did not lead to the expected significant improvement in the water quality of rivers, including the Volga, and reservoirs in Russia. Such failed projects as NAWAPA in the USA and Canada, projects of interzonal redistribution of water resources in the USSR, projects of Nizhneobskaya and Turukhanskaya (Evenkijskaya) hydroelectric power plants, partially implemented projects of Cheboksary and Nizhnekamsk hydroelectric power plants, as well as a number of others are considered. Among the main reasons for unsuccessful forecasts, unfulfilled plans and projects are the lack of reliable data, incomplete knowledge about laws of nature and society development, financial problems, environmental demands, and the dramatically changed economic and political situation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".