Stream temperatures in two shaded reaches below cutblocks and logging roads: downstream cooling linked to subsurface hydrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined water temperature patterns and their physical controls for two small, clearing-heated streams in shaded reaches downstream of all forestry activity. Field observations were made during JulyAugust 2000 in the central interior of British Columbia, Canada. For both reaches, downstream cooling of up to 4°C had been observed during daytime over distances of ~200 m. Radiative and convective exchanges of energy at heavily shaded sites on both reaches represented a net input of heat during most afternoons and therefore could not explain the observed cooling. In one stream, the greatest downstream cooling occurred when streamflow at the upstream site dropped below about 5 L·s1. At those times, temperatures at the downstream site were controlled mainly by local inflow of groundwater, because the warmer water from upstream was lost by infiltration in the upper 150 m of the reach. Warming often occurred in the upper subreach, where cool groundwater did not interact with the channel. At the second stream, creek temperature patterns were comparatively stable. Energy balance estimates from one afternoon suggested that groundwater inflow caused about 40% of the ~3°C gross cooling effect in the daily maximum temperature, whereas bed heat conduction and hyporheic exchange caused about 60%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".