MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implications of Hyporheic Flow on Temperature-Based Estimates of Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions

2012· article· en· W2077961859 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyporheic zoneGroundwaterHydraulic conductivitySurface waterHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGroundwater flowSTREAMSGroundwater modelSoil scienceFlux (metallurgy)Groundwater dischargeFlow conditionsFlow (mathematics)GeologyAquiferMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterEnvironmental engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hyporheic zone has received significant attention in recent years due to its role in regulating the physical, chemical, and biological processes that buffer fluvial systems at a variety of scales. The exchange of water through the hyporheic zone is also important for the regulation of stream and streambed temperatures. Recent research has utilized stream and streambed temperatures to quantify groundwater discharge to streams using a variety of methods, including one-dimensional analytical solutions for vertical flux across the streambed interface. The presence of lateral flows, including hyporheic flow, will cause uncertainty in these analytical solution results. In this study, HydroGeoSphere, a three-dimensional, fully integrated surface/subsurface hydrologic model, is used to simulate the manner in which streambed heterogeneity influences groundwater/surface water interactions along a stream section, and the uncertainty of groundwater/surface water flux estimates based upon streambed temperatures. Groundwater/surface water exchange fluxes from numerical experiments of an idealized linear reach with homogeneous and heterogeneous streambed materials are compared to the results of a one-dimensional analytical solution of groundwater discharge to a stream using the numerically simulated temperature results. Both low- and high-variance distributions of hydraulic conductivity (ln K variances of 0.85 and 17.0, respectively) along the streambed caused hyporheic flow, which caused significant discrepancies between the numerical and analytical groundwater/surface water flux results. A low variance in hydraulic conductivity did result in smaller discrepancies between the numerical and analytical solutions compared to the higher-variance simulations; however, the discrepancies between the low-K-variance simulations and the associated analytical solution interpretation still differed by up to an order in magnitude. The quantity of hyporheic flow increased with increased depth of heterogeneous streambed sediments, causing greater discrepancies between the analytical estimate and the numerical solution of groundwater/surface water exchange. In all simulations the analytical solution underestimated the exchange flux, and in the presence of hyporheic flow, the analytical solution was unable to capture the patterns of exchange flux at the streambed. The three-dimensional modeling approach produced an increase in the lateral flow components within the streambed compared to results inferred from one- and two-dimensional models employed in previous research. This three-dimensional approach enabled analysis of the spatial variability of error between the analytical and numerical results and determined that in environments with lateral flows, including hyporheic flow, the analytical solution is indicative of the patterns of the vertical component of fluid flow to the streambed.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · 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