MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317946159 · doi:10.1002/2014wr016124

Effect of bedrock permeability on stream base flow mean transit time scaling relations: 1. A multiscale catchment intercomparison

2016· article· en· W2317946159 on OpenAlexaff
V. Cody Hale, Jeffrey J. McDonnell

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Council for Air and Stream Improvement
KeywordsBedrockHydrology (agriculture)Drainage basinGeologyBase flowScalingWatershedPermeability (electromagnetism)DrainageGeomorphologySoil scienceEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effect of bedrock permeability and underlying catchment boundaries on stream base flow mean transit time (MTT) and MTT scaling relationships in headwater catchments is poorly understood. Here we examine the effect of bedrock permeability on MTT and MTT scaling relations by comparing 15 nested research catchments in western Oregon; half within the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest and half at the site of the Alsea Watershed Study. The two sites share remarkably similar vegetation, topography, and climate and differ only in bedrock permeability (one poorly permeable volcanic rock and the other more permeable sandstone). We found longer MTTs in the catchments with more permeable fractured and weathered sandstone bedrock than in the catchments with tight, volcanic bedrock (on average, 6.2 versus 1.8 years, respectively). At the permeable bedrock site, 67% of the variance in MTT across catchments scales was explained by drainage area, with no significant correlation to topographic characteristics. The poorly permeable site had opposite scaling relations, where MTT showed no correlation to drainage area but the ratio of median flow path length to median flow path gradient explained 91% of the variance in MTT across seven catchment scales. Despite these differences, hydrometric analyses, including flow duration and recession analysis, and storm response analysis, show that the two sites share relatively indistinguishable hydrodynamic behavior. These results show that similar catchment forms and hydrologic regimes hide different subsurface routing, storage, and scaling behavior—a major issue if only hydrometric data are used to define hydrological similarity for assessing land use or climate change response.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations117
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207