Comparison of the hydrological role of two reclaimed slopes of different ages in the Athabasca oil sands region, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing hydrological connectivity in reconstructed landscapes, and understanding how this connectivity evolves over time, is critical for the development of effective water management strategies after oil sands extraction. In the current study, the dominant controls on the soil water regimes and runoff generation mechanisms on two contrasting reclaimed slopes (2 and 6 years after reclamation) in the Athabasca oil sands region are investigated. The most recently reclaimed slope demonstrated a hydrologic regime with limited soil water storage due to a low surface infiltration capacity that constrained percolation of rainfall. Accordingly, this slope generated a substantial amount of surface runoff controlled primarily by precipitation intensity. Conversely, the older slope had a greater surface infiltration capacity, more dynamic soil water regime, and infrequent surface runoff. Topography controlled soil water distribution on the older slope more strongly than the newer slope due to more efficient water redistribution. This suggests that changes in the hydrophysical properties of reclamation materials following construction result in a shift in the hydrological role of reclaimed slopes at the watershed scale. Thus, over time, reclaimed slopes produce less overland flow and shift from water conveyors to water storage features in constructed watershed systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".