Recent multi-year streamflow regimes and water budgets of hillslope catchments in the Canadian High Arctic: evaluation and comparison to other small Arctic watershed studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates whether a recent decline in snowcover extent for circumpolar regions is matched by changes in the seasonal streamflow regime of several small hillslope catchments on Bathurst and Melville Islands. This includes shifts in the timing of initiation, peak discharge and impacts on the spring–summer water budgets. Paired catchments (West and East) at the Cape Bounty Arctic Watershed Observatory (CBAWO) on Melville Island (74.9°N, 109.5°W) have been studied from the pre-snowmelt season to early August since 2003. They are low-rolling tundra catchments between 8.0 and 11.6 km2 in area. Likewise, within the Polar Bear Pass (PBP) watershed, Bathurst Island (75.7°N 98.7°W), two hillslope basins, Windy Creek (4.2 km2) and Landing Strip Creek (0.2 km2) have been investigated since 2007. Detailed snow surveys were conducted each spring and streamflow estimates were made using the mid-section velocity method. Nival regimes continue to dominate in these basins but runoff ratios are variable between catchments, across islands, and from year-to-year. In comparison to earlier streamflow studies across the Queen Elizabeth Islands (QEIs), an earlier response to peak discharge and start of flow for these hillslope streams is confirmed. Water budgets for PBP, CBAWO differ from other small Arctic watersheds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".