Spatial variation in transient water table responses: differences between an upper and lower hillslope zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To better understand storage‐runoff dynamics, transient groundwater responses were examined in one of the steep watersheds in British Columbia's coastal mountains. Streamflow and piezometric data were collected for 1 year to determine the spatial and temporal relations between transient groundwater levels and discharge. Correlations between piezometer responses and lag‐time analysis were used to identify and better understand runoff generation mechanisms in this watershed. Results showed a large spatial and temporal variation in transient water table dynamics and indicated that two distinct zones existed: a lower hillslope zone and an upslope zone. Each zone was characterized by very different water table responses. The upper hillslope was disconnected from the stream for the majority of time, suggesting that during most events, it does not directly contribute to streamflow. Piezometers in the lower hillslope zone showed hydrologically limited responses, suggesting rapid subsurface flow, likely through the many macropores and soil pipes. The lag time between peak streamflow and peak groundwater level decreased with increasing antecedent moisture conditions and was more variable for piezometers further away from the stream than for piezometers close to the stream. The study results indicate that a single storage‐runoff model is not appropriate for this steep watershed and that a two‐ or three‐compartment model would be more suitable. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".