MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2326505956 · doi:10.1061/40569(2001)427

Consumptive Use Literature Review of Phreatophytes Common to the Canadian River in Texas

2001· article· en· W2326505956 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chuck Jachens, Ty Mull

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvapotranspirationEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Vegetation (pathology)Water balanceWater useDrainage basinWater resourcesWater resource managementTranspirationFloodplainWater consumptionWater cycleWater conservationResource (disambiguation)Surface waterGeographyEnvironmental engineeringGeologyEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work was to collect, research, review, and study water use rates of naturally occurring vegetation common to the Canadian River floodplain in the State of Texas. This task is part of a more comprehensive study of water salvage or vegetation management in the Canadian River Basin of the Texas Panhandle. An accurate assessment of the hydrologic balance is possible by accurately estimating or measuring the evapotranspiration (ET) over a basin or study area: This information can be important in assessing water resource management options. Evapotranspiration (plant transpiration and surface evaporation) is one of the largest outflow components of the hydrologic or water budget. The water consumption of phreatophytes is often estimated as a residual in the hydrologic water budget once the other variables of the water budget are known.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0300.037
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→