MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2124361602 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2013-0300

Occurrence and magnitude of low flows for Canadian rivers: an ecozone approach

2013· article· en· W2124361602 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mike Hulley, Colin Clarke, Ed Watt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityInro Consultants (Canada)Royal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnitude (astronomy)Environmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Flow (mathematics)ClimatologyScale (ratio)Return periodGeographyPhysical geographyGeologyCartographyFlood mythMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-flow occurrence and magnitude have been documented for Canada using the National Ecological Framework. The low flow database is composed of the 7-day low flow with 2-year return period (7Q2) values for 453 natural flow hydrometric stations with record lengths of at least 30 years; drainage areas ranged from 10 to 30 000 km2. Occurrence zones corresponding to predominant season for annual low flows are associated with ecozones. The ecozone scale was found to be suitable for regional analysis for several ecozones. For some ecozones there were insufficient data for regional analysis and for others finer resolution is required. Regional regression equations were developed for estimating 7Q2 in terms of area for ecozones containing at least 20 stations. The results of this work will help practitioners to identify the season of low flow occurrence and the appropriate method of analysis, and provide a means of estimating 7Q2 for ungauged sites for some ecozones.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→