Hydrographic surveys of four narrows within the Namakan reservoir system, Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota, 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.Hydrographic surveys were performed using a RESON SeaBat™7125 multibeam echosounder system.Surveys were completed at Namakan Narrows, Harrison Narrows, King Williams Narrows, and Little Vermilion Narrows.Hydrographic survey data were processed using Caris HIPS TM and SIPS TM software that interpolated a combined uncertainty and bathymetric estimator (CUBE) surface.Quality of the survey results was evaluated in relation to standards set by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) for describing the uncertainty of hydrographic surveys.More than 90 percent of the surveyed areas at the four narrows have resulting bed elevations that meet the IHO "Special Order" quality.Survey datasets published in this report are formatted as text files of x-y-z coordinates and as CARIS Spatial Archive TM (CSAR TM ) files with corresponding metadata.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".