MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2127950957 · doi:10.7202/020027ar

Précisions au sujet des termes de débit, d’écoulement et de ruissellement en hydrologie

2005· article· en· W2127950957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Louis‐Edmond Hamelin

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de géographie du Québec · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusionTerminologyHydrology (agriculture)SociologyGeologyPhilosophyLinguisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrology, one of the most neglected branches of geography, is primarily the study of flowing waters derived from precipitations. Hence, the words « discharge » , « flow » and « run-off » are at the core of research in this field. There is much confusion about these terms which are not given the same meanings by the various authors. The best definitions would be the following : « discharge » means the quantity of water that flows ; « flow » concerns rather the action of flowing, and « run-off » is the part of the rainfall that flows, or the quantity of rainfall using streams when leaving a region. The epithets added to these basic terms are also very different from one researcher to another or from one country to another. Trying to eliminate this looseness of terminology, the author bas attempted to define the main qualificatives applied to the three fundamental words. Hence the hydrological studies will gain in accuracy. French and English terms used in scientific publications should be as much equivalent as possible.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de géographie du Québec→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→