MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060819285 · doi:10.1080/14634980490461560

Linkages between groundwater and coastal wetlands of the Laurentian Great Lakes

2004· article· en· W2060819285 on OpenAlexaff
Allan S. Crowe, Steve Shikaze

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsFuture EarthEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceSnowmeltGroundwater flowGroundwater dischargeSubsurface flowInfiltration (HVAC)Spring (device)Surface waterGeologyAquiferEcologyGeographyGeomorphologyEnvironmental engineeringSnow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater flow regimes adjacent to coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes are highly transient and vary among different types of coastal wetlands. Groundwater flow is controlled by (1) the physiography of the land adjacent to the wetland, (2) the relative elevations of the wetland and the lake, as they fluctuate over time, and (3) the amount of infiltration and evapotranspiration that occurs at the land and wetland. Groundwater from the mainland adjacent to a wetland will flow towards and discharge into the wetland throughout the year. In a spit that partially protects a wetland from a lake, the source of groundwater is precipitation and snowmelt; not water from the lake or wetland. Here, groundwater continually flows from either side of a central groundwater divide towards the lake or wetland, with the elevation of the lake only affecting the rate of groundwater drainage. Because barrier bars completely separate a lake from a wetland, the elevation of the lake and wetland are different. When the barrier bar is narrow, the resultant hydraulic gradient across the barrier bar causes groundwater flow to oscillate between flowing towards the lake during the fall and winter and towards the wetland during the spring and summer. But as the width of the barrier bar increases, the impact of the lake and wetland diminish relative to the amount of precipitation and snowmelt infiltrating into the barrier bar. Thus, the groundwater flow regime is characterized by a central groundwater divide with groundwater on either side continuously flowing towards the lake and wetland throughout the year. Intradunal wetlands are actually several small wetlands within a series of relic beach ridges and parabolic dunes. Groundwater flow regimes here are highly variable and transient with flow adjacent to different wetlands, and at different times of the year, exhibiting continuous flow to a wetland, oscillating direction of flow, and lateral migration of the groundwater divide. However, these groundwater flow patterns are caused by precipitation and evapotranspiration within the wetland complex and not by fluctuating lake levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Ecosystem Health & ManagementSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207