Streamwater ages in nested, seasonally cold Canadian watersheds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mean transit time (MTT) is an important descriptor of water storage and release dynamics in watersheds. Although MTT studies are numerous for many regions around the world, they are rare for prairie watersheds where seasonally cold or dry conditions require adequate methodological choices towards MTT estimation, especially regarding the handling of sparse data records and tracer selection. To examine the impact of such choices, we used timeseries of δ 18 O and δ 2 H from two contrasted years (2014 and 2015) and relied on two metrics and two modelling methods to infer MTTs in prairie watersheds. Our focus was on nested outlets with different drainage areas, geologies, and known run‐off generation mechanisms. The damping ratio and young water fraction (i.e., the fraction of streamflow with transit times lesser than 3 months) metrics, as well as the sine‐wave modelling and time‐based convolution modelling methods, were applied to year‐specific data. Results show that young water fractions and modelled MTT values were, respectively, larger and smaller in 2014, which was a wet year, compared with that in 2015. In 2014, most outlets had young water fractions larger than 0.5 and MTT values lesser than 6 months. The damping ratio, young water fraction, and sine‐wave modelling methods led to convergent conclusions about watershed water storage and release dynamics for some of the monitored sites. Contrasting results were, however, obtained when the same method was applied using δ 2 H instead of δ 18 O, due to differing evaporation fractionation, or when the time‐based convolution modelling method was used. Some methods also failed to provide any robust results during the dry year (i.e., 2015), highlighting the difficulty in inferring MTTs when data are sparse due to intermittent streamflow. This study therefore allowed the formulation of empirical recommendations for MTT estimation in prairie environments as a function of data availability and antecedent wetness 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".