MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404566876 · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08082-9

Concerns regarding proposed groundwater Earth system boundary

2024· letter· en· W4404566876 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Cuthbert, Tom Gleeson, Marc F. P. Bierkens, Grant Ferguson, Richard G. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Victoria
FundersTiina ja Antti Herlinin säätiöVetenskapsrådetSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasSight Research UKPorticus FoundationGlobal Environment FacilityCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchNatural Environment Research CouncilAustralian GovernmentGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsEarth (classical element)GroundwaterBoundary (topology)Earth system scienceEnvironmental scienceEarth scienceAstrobiologyGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsMathematicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater, the largest store of accessible freshwater on Earth, is under increasing pressure as a resource 1 and its over-exploitation can harm dependent ecosystems, increase the severity of hydrological drought, and cause land subsidence and salinization 2 . It is, therefore, a welcome development that groundwater has been explicitly incorporated in the endeavour to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) in a recent article by Rockström et al. 3 . However, here we raise concerns about the proposed groundwater ESB, by showing how it is based on an incorrect conceptual understanding of groundwater system dynamics and nomenclature. The proposed boundary is thus potentially misleading, with important implications for assessing the global status of groundwater resources with regards to safe and just water management.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatureSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207