MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542699965 · doi:10.1029/2002wr001510

Oxygen 18 fractionation during snowmelt: Implications for spring flood hydrograph separation

2002· article· en· W1542699965 on OpenAlexaff
Hjalmar Laudon, H. Hemond, R. Krouse, Kevin Bishop

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowmeltHydrographMeltwaterHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceSpring (device)Flood mythStreamflowSTREAMSSnowDrainage basinGeologyGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isotopic hydrograph separation (IHS) to define sources of event and preevent water during hydrological episodes has greatly improved the understanding of water, solute, and contaminant transport to streams during recent decades. However, the large variation in snowmelt isotopic composition, caused by fractionation during melting, has impeded an accurate separation of streamflow during spring flood episodes. Here we present a method that greatly improves the separation of event and preevent water during snowmelt by accounting for both the temporal change in the snowmelt isotopic signal and the temporary storage of meltwater in the catchment. Comparison of results of this technique with previous results, using isotopic data from the 1997 spring flood on a small catchment in northern Sweden, suggests that earlier techniques significantly underestimate the preevent contribution. This paper also explores the importance of lateral mixing across the catchment of temporally varying event inputs for the IHS results.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations128
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207