MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141546218 · doi:10.5194/hess-14-859-2010

Groundwater flow and storage within an alpine meadow-talus complex

2010· article· en· W2141546218 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alastair McClymont, Masaki Hayashi, L. R. Bentley, D. Muir, Erin Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungParks CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSnowmeltGeologyBedrockGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Water tableGround-penetrating radarElectrical resistivity tomographySnowWatershedGroundwater flowSurface runoffStructural basinSaproliteWater storagePiezometerGeomorphologyAquiferWeatheringRadarElectrical resistivity and conductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The different types of geological deposits and rock formations found in alpine watersheds play key roles in regulating the rate and timing of runoff to mountain rivers. Talus and alpine meadows are dominant features in these areas, but scant data exist for their capacity to store and transmit groundwater. To gain further understanding of these processes, we have undertaken a combined geophysical and hydrological study of a small (2100 m2) alpine meadow and surrounding talus within the Lake O'Hara watershed in the Canadian Rockies. Several intersecting ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) profiles and a seismic refraction profile were acquired to map the thickness of the talus and to image the topography of the bedrock basin that underlies the meadow. From analysis of the GPR and seismic profiles, we estimate that the talus deposits are relatively thin (<6 m). Combined interpretations from the GPR and ERT data show that the fine-grained sediment comprising the meadow basin has a total volume of ca. 3300 m3 and has a maximum thickness of ca. 4 m. Annual snow surveys and stream gauging reveal that the total input volume of snowmelt and rainfall to the meadow basin is several times larger than its groundwater storage capacity, giving rise to low total-dissolved species concentrations (14–21 mg/L) within the meadow groundwater. Observations from four piezometers established on the meadow show that the water table fluctuates rapidly in response to spring snowmelt and precipitation events but otherwise maintains a relatively stable depth of 0.3–0.4 m below the meadow surface during summer months. A slug test performed on one of the piezometers indicated that the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the shallow meadow sediments is 2.5×10−7 m/s. We suggest that a bedrock saddle imaged underneath the southern end of the meadow forms a natural constriction to subsurface flow out of the basin and helps to maintain the stable water-table depth.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations88
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207