Where does the water go? Understanding geohydrological behaviour of Andean catchments in south-central Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper Diguillín and Renegado are two neighbouring Andean basins of south-central Chile, with different specific discharges that cannot be explained solely by their difference in size. To address this issue, this study considers three separate but complementary approaches: (a) long-term analysis of rainfall and flow trends; (b) determination of hydrogeological properties at the watershed scale; and (c) analysis of the temporal evolution of groundwater storage. First, a trend test detected a statistically significant discharge decrease for Renegado in summer, unrelated to a coincidental precipitation trend, which seems to be associated with an increased use of water in that season related to tourism activity in the area. Second, there were no important differences in hydraulic conductivity or drainable porosity between the two study areas. However, it was found that there is a long-term negative trend in groundwater storage for Renegado; that is, water that contributes to the lower Diguillín streamflow through numerous springs.Editor Z. W. Kundzewicz Associate editor not assigned
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".