MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404566927 · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08083-8

Reply to: Concerns regarding proposed groundwater Earth system boundary

2024· letter· en· W4404566927 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stuart E. Bunn, Ben Stewart‐Koster, Christopher E. Ndehedehe, Christopher Gordon, Johan Rockström, Joyeeta Gupta, D. Qin, Steven J. Lade

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTiina ja Antti Herlinin säätiöVetenskapsrådetSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasPorticus FoundationGlobal Environment FacilityCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchAustralian GovernmentGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsEarth (classical element)GroundwaterBoundary (topology)Earth system scienceEnvironmental scienceAstrobiologyEarth scienceGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsOceanographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater is widely used for domestic and agricultural purposes, but is subject to increasing risks from overexploitation. Responding to this global significance, we recently defined a safe and just Earth system boundary (ESB) for groundwater 1 and, in the absence of a consistent data source on baseline aquifer volumes, used derived estimates of groundwater storage (GWS) from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission data to assess the state of the Earth system with respect to the ESB for groundwater. In the accompanying Comment 2 , Cuthbert et al. agree that our effort to define a groundwater ESB is timely and important, but they assert that our approach is “flawed, unsafe and unjust”. Their concerns reflect misunderstandings of the definition and purpose of the boundary, a misunderstanding of the ‘safe’ and ‘just’ concepts 3 that underpin our work, a lack of confidence in the use of GRACE data to calculate changes in GWS, and the possibility of confusion related to the use of some terms.

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: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.133
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.228
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatureSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207