Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'auteur critique d/abord les quatre valeurs de base du bilan de l'eau : les précipitations, surtout de saisons froides, sont sous-estimées de 15 à 20% (au passage, l'auteur insiste sur la nécessité de tracer les cartes d'isohyètes pour estimer les précipitations moyennes); il faut employer la formule de Penman (ou faute de mieux celle de Turc) pour calculer l’évapotranspiration potentielle ; l'écoulement, à défaut de mesures, peut se calculer par le procédé de Thornthwaite ; enfin on doit connaître la réserve utile d'eau dans le sol. L'auteur analyse ensuite, à partir d'observations personnelles dans le bassin de l'Orne, deux méthodes qui permettent de dresser un bilan de l'eau. Les procédés de Fontaine (1964) ou de Thorntwaite (1957) permettent d'aboutir à de bons résultats à condition de les améliorer en choisissant la formule de Turc pour l'évapotranspiration potentielle, en multipliant les précipitations hivernales par 1.2 et en calculant correctement la réserve utile d'eau dans le sol.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".