Permafrost degradation as a control on hydrogeological regime shifts in a warming climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using numerical models, we evaluate hydrogeological regime changes in high‐latitude river basins under conditions of ground surface warming. These models describe transient heat‐ and fluid flow coupled to the hydrogeological impacts of phase‐changes from ice to liquid water. We consider an idealized unconsolidated sedimentary aquifer system in which groundwater flow is driven by topography, representing a series of small drainage basins in riverine terrain of relatively subdued topography. Various temporal and spatial surface temperature conditions are considered to control the initial permafrost distributions for the simulations. The simulated rates of increase in groundwater contribution to streamflow during and after permafrost thaw, are in the order of magnitude comparable to hydrogeological regime changes over the past decades as reported for several (sub‐)Arctic rivers. The simulations further show that two distinct features of the subsurface response control the temporal evolution of base flow increase: (1) shifts in aquifer permeability architecture during permafrost degradation and (2) uptake of water into aquifer storage when sub‐permafrost hydraulic heads rise. Model analysis shows that the latter process delays base flow increase by several decades to centuries. In order to evaluate the relative importance of both processes in natural systems, the current hydraulic regime of sub‐permafrost aquifer systems as well as patterns of permafrost heterogeneity, taliks and their hydraulic connectivity are insufficiently known.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".