MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320664035 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-036

Scale effects and variability of forest–water yield relationships on the Loess Plateau, China

2014· article· en· W2320664035 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chao Bi, Huaxing Bi, Ge Sun, Yi‐Fang Chang, Lubo Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface runoffAfforestationEnvironmental scienceEvapotranspirationHydrology (agriculture)PrecipitationLoess plateauForest coverLoessRunoff curve numberPhysical geographyAgroforestrySoil scienceGeographyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between forests and water yield on the Loess Plateau is a concern to forest hydrologists and local governments. Most research indicates that forests reduce runoff but the degree of reduction is different at different sites. Data on precipitation, runoff depth, evapotranspiration and forest cover were collected for 67 watersheds through synthesizing published literature. Results suggest that afforestation on sparsely vegetated catchments reduces runoff and that this effect decreased with increasing forest cover. Annual runoff coefficients fluctuate around 4.1%. Catchment scales influence the relationship between percent forest and runoff coefficient. We believe that afforestation–water yield relationships are variable. Large-scale watersheds may have a relatively high buffering capacity that masks forest cover effects on runoff because of a number of interacting factors. Results from this research will support the implementation of large-scale afforestation programs on the Loess Plateau.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207