MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952056858 · doi:10.1002/lol2.10110

Headwater lakes and their influence on downstream discharge

2019· article· en· W2952056858 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason A. Leach, Hjalmar Laudon

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsDownstream (manufacturing)Hydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceHydrographWater qualityDischargeDrainage basinSTREAMSEcologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Small headwater lakes are common water features in northern environments. These small lakes are often reported to have an influence on downstream water quality; however, few studies have addressed the underlying hydrology of these systems and how small lakes influence downstream discharge or how far downstream these influences persist. We show that catchments with small lakes sustain baseflows compared to catchments without lakes. In addition, small lakes have limited influence on the magnitude and timing of peakflow events, except for immediately downstream of the lake where peakflow hydrographs are characterized by low magnitude and long duration. The relative contribution of lake water to downstream discharge can vary widely in time (between 0% and 75%) and be detectable when lakes make up as little as 0.5% of catchment area. This variability and persistence of lake water in stream networks may have important implications for how we interpret water quality patterns downstream of small lakes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and Oceanography LettersSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207