Comparison of the Spatiotemporal Variability of Temperature, Precipitation, and Maximum Daily Spring Flows in Two Watersheds in Quebec Characterized by Different Land Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the spatiotemporal variability of temperatures and precipitation with that of the magnitude and timing of maximum daily spring flows in the geographically adjacent L’Assomption River (agricultural) and Matawin River (forested) watersheds during the period from 1932 to 2013. With regard to spatial variability, fall, winter, and spring temperatures as well as total precipitation are higher in the agricultural watershed than in the forested one. The magnitude of maximum daily spring flows is also higher in the first watershed as compared with the second, owing to substantial runoff, given that the amount of snow that gives rise to these flows is not significantly different in the two watersheds. These flows occur early in the season in the agricultural watershed because of the relatively high temperatures. With regard to temporal variability, minimum temperatures increased over time in both watersheds. Maximum temperatures in the fall only increased in the agricultural watershed. The amount of spring rain increased over time in both watersheds, whereas total precipitation increased significantly in the agricultural watershed only. However, the amount of snow decreased in the forested watershed. The magnitude of maximum daily spring flows increased over time in the forested watershed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".