Marmot Creek Experimental Watershed Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origins and results of the scientific experiments in Marmot Creek Experimental Watershed, now the Marmot Creek Research Basin, over more than 50 years are reviewed. Marmot Creek was established to better understand how forest manipulations could be used to manage streamflow hydrographs and was actively manipulated in the 1970s and 1980s. While small forest clearings were shown to increase snow accumulation consistently, the impacts on melt rates depended on clearing size, slope and aspect. As a result, clearing treatments whether through large cutblocks or small clearings had modest impacts on the hydrograph timing and variability and only local impacts on streamflow volume. Changes in climate are primarily manifested as warming which has substantially reduced snowpacks at low elevations. These climate changes have not been evident in hydrograph change and there is no trend to volumes or timing of streamflow over the last 50 years. Overall the basin shows remarkable resiliency to climate and land use change due to its wide range of elevations, slopes, snow environments and sub-surface storage. The basin has become a hydrological process observatory where multi-scale models are developed and evaluated for operation over larger areas. It has served an invaluable role for this and the scientific results from Marmot Creek have supported the development of global climate models and hydrological models that are now applied throughout the world.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".