MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810923001 · doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12659

Streamflow Depletion Modeling: Methods for an Adaptable and Conjunctive Water Management Decision Support Tool

2018· article· en· W2810923001 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xander Huggins, Tom Gleeson, Hailey D. Eckstrand, Ben Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStreamflowGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceWatershedFlexibility (engineering)Surface waterWatershed managementHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementDecision support systemConjunctive useWater resourcesAquiferComputer scienceEnvironmental engineeringGeologyData miningGeographyDrainage basinMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Groundwater pumping depletes streamflow, which can have significant ecological impacts depending on the magnitude of depletion relative to environmental flow needs. Streamflow depletion estimates from groundwater pumping have been quantified using both analytical and numerical methods, but are not routinely compared to environmental flow needs or used in practical water management tools. Decision support tools that incorporate groundwater dynamics are becoming increasingly necessary for water managers as groundwater regulations become more important in environmental policy, particularly concerning the preservation of environmental flow needs. We develop and apply methods for a web‐based decision support tool for conjunctive groundwater and surface water management, demonstrated using a case study watershed in British Columbia, Canada. Open‐source data are analyzed with a combination of spatial algorithms and previously developed analytical models, such that the tool can be applied to other regions. Streamflow depletion estimates are calculated in four regions in the largely undeveloped Bulkley Valley, British Columbia. Our transparent methodology has geographic and data input flexibility which is a significant improvement on currently existing water management tool methods.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207