Groundwater contribution to river flows – using hydrograph separation, hydrological and hydrogeological models in a southern Quebec aquifer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Groundwater contribution to river flows, generally called base flows, often accounts for a significant proportion of total flow rate, especially during the dry season. The objective of this work is to test simple approaches requiring limited data to understand groundwater contribution to river flows. The Noire river basin in southern Quebec is used as a case study. A lumped conceptual hydrological model (the MOHYSE model), a groundwater flow model (MODFLOW) and hydrograph separation are used to provide estimates of base flow for the study area. Results show that the methods are complementary. Hydrograph separation and the MOHYSE surface flow model provide similar annual estimates for the groundwater contribution to river flow, but monthly base flows can vary significantly between the two methods. Both methods have the advantage of being easily implemented. However, the distinction between aquifer contribution and shallow subsurface contribution to base flow can only be made with a groundwater flow model. The aquifer renewal rate estimated with the MODFLOW model for the Noire River is 30% of the recharge estimated from base flow values. This is a significantly difference which can be crucial for regional-scale water management.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".