MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413071189 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/adf127

A review of open data for studying global groundwater in social–ecological systems

2025· article· en· W4413071189 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xander Huggins, Tom Gleeson, J. S. Famiglietti, Robert Reinecke, Daniel Zamrsky, Thorsten Wagener, Richard G. Taylor, Megan Konar, Claudia Ruz Vargas, Miina Porkka, Lan Wang‐Erlandsson, Inge de Graaf, Mark Cuthbert, Sara Lindersson, Yoshihide Wada, Marc F. P. Bierkens, Yadu Pokhrel, Juan Rocha, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Matti Kummu, Grant Ferguson, Abhijit Mukherjee, Min‐Hui Lo, Bridget R. Scanlon, Mark S. Johnson, Chunmiao Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNational Science and Technology CouncilBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungAcademy of FinlandStrategic Research CouncilCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentrum för naturkatastrofslära, Uppsala UniversitetEuropean CommissionAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHydrosphereGroundwaterHydrogeologyEarth system scienceSustainabilityBiosphereSocioeconomic statusEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementEarth scienceGeographyEcologyGeologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Global data have served an integral role in characterizing large-scale groundwater systems, identifying their sustainability challenges, and informing on socioeconomic and ecological dimensions of groundwater. These insights have revealed groundwater as a dynamic component of the water cycle and social–ecological systems, leading to an expansion in groundwater science that increasingly focuses on groundwater’s interactions with ecological, socioeconomic, and Earth systems. This shift presents many opportunities that are conditional on broader, more interdisciplinary system conceptualizations, models, and methods that require the integration of a greater diversity of data in contrast to conventional hydrogeological investigations. Here, we catalogue 144 global open access datasets and dataset collections relevant to groundwater science that span elements of the hydrosphere, biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere, food systems, governance, management, and other socioeconomic system dimensions. The assembled catalogue offers a reference of available data for use in interdisciplinary assessments, and we summarize these data across their primary system, spatial resolution, temporal range, data type, generation method, level of groundwater representation, and institutional location of lead authorship. The catalogue includes 15 groundwater datasets, 23 datasets derived in relation to groundwater, and 106 datasets associated with groundwater. We find the majority of datasets are temporally static and that temporally dynamic data peak in availability during the 2000–2010 decade. Only a small fraction of temporally dynamic data is derived with any direct representation of groundwater, highlighting the need for greater incorporation of groundwater in Earth system models and data collection initiatives across socioeconomic, governance, and environmental science research communities. A small number of countries, led by the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada, generate most global groundwater data, reflecting a global North bias in the institutional leadership of these data generation activities. We raise three priority themes for future global groundwater data initiatives, which include: data improvements through prioritizing observed and temporally dynamic data; elevating regional and local scale data and perspectives to address challenges relating to equity and bias; and advancing data sharing initiatives founded on reciprocal benefits between global initiatives and data providers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.274 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207