Future water demand modeling: A multi-sector review using a streamlined methodological approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Future water demand modeling is of crucial importance for stakeholders, particularly in the era of rapidly changing climate and socioeconomic conditions. The modeling results can be applied to develop effective adaptation strategies that ensure equitable and sustainable allocation of water to various economic sectors, including institutional, commercial, industrial (ICI), residential and agricultural. However, a comprehensive review of existing future water demand modeling methods that consider both climatic and socioeconomic factors as well as the major economic sectors is currently lacking. This review article contributes to fill this knowledge gap while introducing a more streamlined and comprehensive methodological approach for conducting literature reviews in the environmental sciences domain. At the core of this method is a new framework designed to support research questions formulation and literature search strategies named STAR (Systems, Trouble/Treatment, Alternative, Response). In addition, it presents a data-requirement-based metric as well as a new nomenclature for classification of surveyed methods and approaches to guide the selection process of future water demand modeling methods. Furthermore, it proposes a hybrid modeling approach made up of three components (computational intelligence, dynamic systems and probabilistic scenarios) in the form of a theoretical workflow for future water demand modeling. The proposed workflow ensures broad applicability, making it adaptable not only to water demand management but also to a wide range of challenges across the environmental sciences.
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) | 0.000 | 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".