MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988207726 · doi:10.1002/2014jd021951

A national‐scale assessment of long‐term water budget closures for Canada's watersheds

2014· article· en· W1988207726 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shusen Wang, Daniel W. McKenney, Jiali Shang, Junhua Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsEvapotranspirationStreamflowEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationArcticHydrology (agriculture)STREAMSClimatologyScale (ratio)Physical geographyGeographyMeteorologyDrainage basinEcologyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examined the long‐term water budget closures for 370 watersheds over Canada's landmass by using 30 years' (1981–2010) data products recently produced for precipitation (P) gridded using climate station measurements, land surface evapotranspiration (ET), and water surface evaporation (E0) obtained by the Ecological Assimilation of Land and Climate Observations (EALCO) model, and observed streamflow (Q). The results show that 29%, 58%, and 83% of the watersheds were closed within 5%, 10%, and 20% of P, respectively. The positive and negative imbalances among the 370 watersheds are largely offset and the national scale average is −24 mm yr −1 , or 4.2% of P. Water budget closures have large variation across the landmass. Regions with sparse or less accurate monitoring of P such as the mountainous region and the Arctic exhibit the largest water imbalances. Further efforts on enhancing the climate observation networks, improving spatial models for P and ET estimates, and streamflow measurements are all likely critical for a better understanding of Canada's water budgets.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations51
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207