Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the 40 years, since soil piping was first considered to be a potential factor in the hydrological response of catchments, research has revealed a considerable amount about its hydrological role and its geographical, climatic and pedological distribution. Piping has been shown to be a major factor supporting the hypothesis that subsurface flow can be a significant contributor to quickflow by field experiments ranging from the United Kingdom to Canada, India and China. This research has demonstrated that, at least in some areas, soil pipes may contribute up to nearly 50% of stormwater discharge. Piping processes therefore merit inclusion within rainfall–runoff simulation models, but this has yet to be achieved. Some progress has been made in modelling pipeflow itself, but integration within a catchment model presents major problems, not least in quantifying or parameterizing the nature and distribution of pipe networks. The wider environmental implications of soil piping are also only just beginning to be recognized. These range from the effects of changing residence times on water chemistry, especially on the acidification of surface waters, to the effects of hillslope drainage patterns on soil development and vegetation diversity. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it