Delineating and Quantifying Ground Water Discharge Zones Using Streambed Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Streambed temperature mapping, hydraulic testing using minipiezometers, and geochemical analyses of interstitial water of the streambed were used to delineate the pattern of ground water discharge in a sandy streambed and to develop a flux-based conceptual model for ground water/surface water interactions. A new and simple empirical method was used to relate fluxes obtained from minipiezometer data to streambed temperatures. The relationship allowed flux to be calculated at locations where only streambed temperature measurements were made. Slug testing and potentiomanometer measurements at 34 piezometers indicated ground water discharge ranged from 0.03 to 446 L/m2/day (and possibly as high as 7060 L/m2/day) along a 60 m long by 11 to 14 m wide reach of river. Complex but similar plan-view patterns of flux were calculated for both summer and winter using hundreds of streambed temperatures measured on a 1 by 2 m grid. The reach was dominated by ground water discharge and 5% to 7% of the area accounted for approximately 20% to 24% of the total discharge. < 12% of the total area consisted of recharge zones or no-discharge zones. A conceptual model for ground water/surface water interactions consisting of five different behaviors was developed based on the magnitude and direction of flux across the surface of the streambed. The behaviors include short-circuit discharge (e.g., high-flow springs), high discharge (e.g., preferential flowpaths), low to moderate discharge, no discharge (e.g., horizontal hyporheic or ground water flow), and recharge. Geological variations at depth played a key role in determining which type of flow behavior occurred in the streambed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".