MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905527580 · doi:10.5194/hess-23-4397-2019

A review of methods for measuring groundwater–surface water exchange in braided rivers

2019· review· en· W2905527580 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katie Coluccio, Leanne K. Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterSurface waterAquiferHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceWater resourcesScale (ratio)Water resource managementEnvironmental resource managementGeologyGeographyEcologyEnvironmental engineeringCartographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Braided rivers, while uncommon internationally, are significant in terms of their unique ecosystems and as vital freshwater resources at locations where they occur. With an increasing awareness of the connected nature of surface water and groundwater, there have been many studies examining groundwater–surface water exchange in various types of waterbodies, but significantly less research has been conducted in braided rivers. Thus, there is currently limited understanding of how characteristics unique to braided rivers, such as channel shifting, expanding and narrowing margins, and a high degree of heterogeneity affect groundwater–surface water flow paths. This article provides an overview of characteristics specific to braided rivers, including a map showing the regions where braided rivers are mainly found at the global scale: Alaska, Canada, the Japanese and European Alps, the Himalayas, Russia, and New Zealand. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first map of its kind. This is followed by a review of prior studies that have investigated groundwater–surface water interactions in braided rivers and their associated aquifers. The various methods used to characterise these processes are discussed with emphasis on their effectiveness in achieving the studies' objectives and their applicability in braided rivers. We also discuss additional methods that appear promising to apply in braided river settings. The aim is to provide guidance on methodologies most suitable for future work in braided rivers. In many cases, previous studies found a multi-method approach useful to produce more robust results and compare data collected at various scales. Given the challenges of working directly in braided rivers, there is considerable scope for the increased use of remote sensing techniques. There is also opportunity for new approaches to modelling braided rivers using integrated techniques that incorporate the complex river bed terrain and geomorphology of braided rivers explicitly. We also identify a critical need to improve the conceptual understanding of hyporheic exchange in braided rivers, rates of recharge to and from braided rivers, and historical patterns of dry and low-flow periods in these rivers.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207