Road runoff and sediment sampling for determining road sediment yield at the watershed scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we demonstrate that watershed-scale estimates of road sediment production are improved if field measurements of road runoff and sediment production are used in the analysis. We used several techniques to spatially extrapolate measurements of road runoff and sampled sediment: comprehensive road runoff measurements, runoff estimates derived from the Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM), and adjustment of the road erosion models WARSEM and SEDMODL2.The sediment yield for the Oak Creek, Oregon, road network based on measured road runoff and sediment was 6.5 tons/year. When DHSVM was used to simulate road runoff, the estimated sediment from roads was similar, 6.9 tons/years. The road sediment production estimated by SEDMODL2 and WARSEM, adjusted with field-measured road runoff and sediment, was 28% and 34% less, respectively, than using the models with the default parameters. When applied to a road network in commercial forest land with frequent road use, the sediment yield estimated by SEDMODL2 and WARSEM without adjustment from field measurements was 480% and 610% higher, respectively, than with adjustments. We found that measuring runoff and sediment from one large storm event (≥1 year recurrence) provided a statistically significant relationship with the annual sediment yield.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".