MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755656667 · doi:10.3390/hydrology4030044

Bayesian Hierarchical Regression to Assess Variation of Stream Temperature with Atmospheric Temperature in a Small Watershed

2017· article· en· W2755656667 on OpenAlexaff
J. A. Daraio, Abena O. Amponsah, Kenneth Sears

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersRowan University
KeywordsRiparian zoneEnvironmental scienceWatershedAir temperatureAtmospheric sciencesSeasonalityMean radiant temperatureHydrology (agriculture)RegressionRegression analysisPhysical geographyClimate changeEcologyGeographyStatisticsMathematicsHabitatGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper described the variability of stream temperature, T s , and compared relationships between T s and air temperature, T a , at 10 sites along a 1.2 km reach in a 2 km 2 basin in New Jersey, USA, using Bayesian Hierarchical Regression. Mean daily mean T s was significantly cooler at two sites and significantly warmer at three sites relative to the mean daily T s for all sites combined. Seasonal daily mean T s showed the greatest variation between sites in the summer within the reach for both daily mean and daily maximum temperatures. Posterior distributions for slope parameters ( β j ) for regressions varied significantly by season and showed the greatest variation in summer. The strongest relationships occurred in autumn with β = 0 . 743 ± 0 . 019 ( β = 0 . 712 ± 0 . 022 ), and the weakest relationships occurred in the summer with β = 0 . 254 ± 0 . 030 ( β = 0 . 193 ± 0 . 039 ). Results support the conclusion that riparian shading impacts the effect of T a on T s , and that T s shows a stronger relationship with measured T a at sites in open areas that are more likely to have meteorologic conditions similar to bulk conditions.

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)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207