MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1712124724 · doi:10.1029/2006wr005137

Simulations of fully coupled lake‐groundwater exchange in a subhumid climate with an integrated hydrologic model

2007· article· en· W1712124724 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian Smerdon, C. A. Mendoza, K. J. Devito

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutwash plainGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Water tableEvapotranspirationRiparian zoneGroundwater rechargeSurface waterGroundwater flowGroundwater modelEnvironmental scienceGroundwater dischargeGeologyMODFLOWAquiferGeomorphologyGlacierEcologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fully coupled, integrated surface water/groundwater model was used to study hydrologic controls on lake‐groundwater interaction in the subhumid, Boreal Plains of northern Alberta, Canada. Findings from a previous water budget study indicate that lakes on the outwash landscape capture groundwater as a major source of water input and function as evaporation windows. Transient hydrologic responses of a flow‐through style lake and outwash groundwater flow system were simulated for a three‐dimensional model. Hydraulic heads, surface water depth, and the corresponding exchange fluxes between the surface and the subsurface were all simulated simultaneously and compared to field observations for the summers of 2002 and 2003. Replication of the transient flow regime required an anisotropy ratio of 10:1 for the outwash deposits and inclusion of riparian peatlands, which control lake‐groundwater interaction and maintain surface water on permeable northern landscapes. Spatially and temporally variable evapotranspiration governed the water table configuration and lake‐groundwater seepage patterns.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations91
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207