Hyporheic exchange flows induced by constructed riffles and steps in lowland streams in southern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stream–subsurface water interaction induced by natural riffles and constructed riffles/steps was examined in lowland streams in southern Ontario, Canada. The penetration of stream water into the subsurface was analysed using hydrometric data, and the zone of > 10% stream water was calculated from a chemical mixing equation using tracer injection of bromide and background chloride concentrations. The constructed riffles studied induced more extensive hyporheic exchange than the natural riffles because of their steeper longitudinal hydraulic head gradients and coarser streambed sediments. The depth of > 10% stream water zone in a small and a large constructed riffle extended to > 0·2 m and > 1·4 m depths respectively. Flux and residence time distribution of hyporheic exchange were simulated in constructed riffles using MODFLOW, a finite‐difference groundwater flow model. Hyporheic flux and residence time distribution varied along the riffles, and the exchange occurring upstream from the riffle crest was small in flux and had a long residence time. In contrast, hyporheic exchange occurring downstream from the riffle crest had a relatively short residence time and accounted for 83% and 70% of total hyporheic exchange flow in a small and large riffle respectively. Although stream restoration projects have not considered the hyporheic zone, our data indicate that constructed riffles and steps can promote vertical hydrologic exchange and increase the groundwater–surface water linkage in degraded lowland streams. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".