MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7050406381

Virtual Water

2013· article· en· W7050406381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual waterProduction (economics)Water resourcesWork (physics)Water scarcityWater useAgricultureCompetition (biology)Water conservationFarm water
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life on earth depends on water. Unfortunately, water resources are not evenly distributed. There are countries with abundant water supplies, such as Brazil or Canada, and countries that lack water resources, such as Egypt or Jordan. Because water is critical for the production of food and other goods, as well as for human consumption, recreation and ecosystem support, competition among the various users for available supplies is often intense. The problem is compounded by the fact that water markets often work imperfectly or are lacking altogether. What can countries with limited water resources do? In rare cases, it may be possible to transfer water from water-abundant regions. For example, the small African country of Lesotho has abundant water supplies and sells its surpluses to South Africa (Mwangi, 2007). Another possibility is to build hydraulic infrastructures (wells, desalination plants, dams, etc.), which can be very expensive and often prove to be environmentally problematic (Velazquez, 2007). Yet another possibility is to consider importing agricultural products that require a lot of water during their production processes. Imports of such goods reduce the need to produce them in the country with scarce water resources. Water imported in the form of water-intensive goods is often referred to as “virtual water.”

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2780.072

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207