Improved spatial delineation of streambed properties and water fluxes using distributed temperature sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new method was developed for analysing and delineating streambed water fluxes, flow conditions and hydraulic properties using coiled fibre‐optic distributed temperature sensing or closely spaced discrete temperature sensors. This method allows for a thorough treatment of the spatial information embedded in temperature data by creating a matrix visualization of all possible sensor pairs. Application of the method to a 5‐day field dataset reveals the complexity of shallow streambed thermal regimes. To understand how velocity estimates are affected by violations of assumptions of one‐dimensional, saturated, homogeneous flow and to aid in the interpretation of field observations, the method was also applied to temperature data generated by numerical models of common field conditions: horizontal layering, presence of lateral flow and variable streambed saturation. The results show that each condition creates a distinct signature visible in the triangular matrices. The matrices are used to perform a comparison of the behaviour of one‐dimensional analytical heat‐tracing models. The results show that the amplitude ratio‐based method of velocity calculation leads to the most reliable estimates. The minimum sensor spacing required to obtain reliable velocity estimates with discrete sensors is also investigated using field data. The developed method will aid future heat‐tracing studies by providing a technique for visualizing and comparing results from fibre‐optic distributed temperature sensing installations and testing the robustness of analytical heat‐tracing models. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".