MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016766663 · doi:10.4296/cwrj3404349

Implementation of a Peatland-Specific Water Budget Algorithm in HYDROTEL

2009· article· en· W2016766663 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sylvain Jutras, Alain N. Rousseau, Clément Clerc

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsPeatWatershedWater tableEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)BorealSoil waterTable (database)Soil scienceGeologyGroundwaterComputer scienceGeographyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HYDROTEL, a distributed hydrological model, was used to simulate streamflows of the Necopastic watershed (N53°40.6’; W78°09.8’), James Bay, Quebec. Because of the prevalence of peatlands in the studied environment, important issues regarding soil parameterization in the vertical, three-layer, water budget sub-model (BV3C) of HYDROTEL were raised. Since BV3C was originally developed for mineral soils, an alternative, peatland-specific, water budget sub-model (PHIM) was integrated into HYDROTEL. Basic data requirements included a description of the organic soil structure and a water-table/discharge relationship. PHIM was calibrated with data collected on a peatland complex located within the Necopastic watershed. Preliminary results of observed and simulated streamflows using both the original and the adapted versions of HYDROTEL compared well, therefore leading the way to future simulations of North-Boreal watersheds.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207