Storage dynamics and streamflow in a catchment with a variable contributing area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Storage heterogeneity effects on runoff generation have been well documented at the hillslope or plot scale. However, diversity across catchments can increase the range of storage conditions. Upscaling the influence of small‐scale storage on streamflow across the usually more heterogeneous environment of the catchment has been difficult. The objective of this study was to observe the distribution of storage in a heterogeneous catchment and evaluate its significance and potential influence on streamflow. The study was conducted in the subarctic Canadian Shield: a region with extensive bedrock outcrops, shallow predominantly organic soils, discontinuous permafrost and numerous water bodies. Even when summer runoff was generated from bedrock hillslopes with small storage capacities, intermediary locations with large storage capacities, particularly headwater lakes, prevented water from transmitting to higher order streams. The topographic bounds of the basin thus constituted the maximum potential contributing area to streamflow and rarely the actual area. Topographic basin storage had little relation to basin streamflow, but hydrologically connected storage exhibited a strong hysteretic relationship with streamflow. This relationship defines the form of catchment function such that the basin can be defined by a series of storing and contributing curves comparable with the wetting and drying curves used in relating tension and hydraulic conductivity to water content in unsaturated soils. These curves may prove useful for catchment classification and elucidating predominant hydrological processes. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".