MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084915658 · doi:10.1002/hyp.6298

Dynamics of evapotranspiration from a riparian pond complex in the Western Boreal Forest, Alberta, Canada

2006· article· en· W2084915658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard M. Petrone, U. Silins, K. J. Devito

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsEvapotranspirationRiparian zoneWetlandPeatEnvironmental scienceBorealTaigaHydrology (agriculture)Riparian forestEcologyForestryGeographyGeologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The relative contributions to total actual evapotranspiration (AET) from pond and riparian areas in a pond‐wetland complex in the Western Boreal Plain (WBP) of northern Alberta are measured using the Bowen ratio energy balance technique. Measurements show that a pond typical of the WBP evaporates at a rate more than twice that of the adjacent riparian peatland. Relating the actual to potential evapotranspiration over both surfaces yields Priestley–Taylor α coefficients of 0·69 and 1·11 for the peatland and pond respectively. Further results demonstrate that the sheltering and turbulent influences of the adjacent forested areas must be considered in the processes governing the permanence of WBP ponds. That is, forestry practices may inadvertently enhance the evaporative losses from the ponds, over and above the controls exerted by the regional climate. Copyright © 2006 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.

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)0.000
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations101
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207