MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W202791752 · doi:10.3133/ds792

Hydrographic surveys of four narrows within the Namakan reservoir system, Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota, 2011

2013· article· en· W202791752 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brenda K. Densmore, Kellan R. Strauch, Jeffrey R. Ziegeweid

Bibliographic record

VenueData series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetryHydrographyHydrographic surveyEcho soundingHydrology (agriculture)Geological surveyGeologyEnvironmental scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The U.S. Geological Survey performed multibeam echosounder hydrographic surveys of four narrows in the Namakan reservoir system in August 2011, in cooperation with the International Joint Commission and Environment Canada. The data-collection effort was completed to provide updated and detailed hydrographic data to Environment Canada for inclusion in a Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System hydraulic model. The Namakan reservoir system is composed of Namakan, Kabetogama, Sand Point, Crane, and Little Vermilion Lakes. Water elevations in the Namakan reservoir system are regulated according to rule curves, or guidelines for water-level management based on the time of year, established by the International Joint Commission. Water levels are monitored by established gages on Crane Lake and the outlet of Namakan Lake at Kettle Falls, but water elevations throughout the system may deviate from these measured values by as much as 0.3 meters, according to lake managers and residents. Deviations from expected water elevations may be caused by between-lake constrictions (narrows). According to the 2000 Rule Curve Assessment Workgroup, hydrologic models of the reservoir system are needed to better understand the system and to evaluate the recent changes made to rule curves in 2000.

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)0.002
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 score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData seriesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207