Comparing various approaches for assessing groundwater recharge at a regional scale in the Canadian Shield
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating groundwater recharge is crucial to ensuring the proper management of aquifers. In this study, net regional recharge and spatial potential recharge are estimated at four watersheds within the Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord (CHCN) regions, Quebec Province, Canada. Four methods are applied based on available data. The first two approaches are regional water budget methods. These two methods differ in their estimation of vertical inflow (VI), which is estimated from two hydrological models: GR4J and HYDROTEL. The third method estimates potential recharge spatially over the study area. Finally, the streamflow data are analysed using the Eckhardt baseflow separation method to obtain an estimation of recharge, assuming that discharge is equal to recharge. According to the results of all investigated methods, the mean annual recharge for the CHCN region is approximately 183 mm, which is 18% of the total annual precipitation (P). The discussion section highlights uncertainties due to the assumptions of each method and the reliability of the data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it