MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017129813 · doi:10.1002/hyp.13783

Development of an inexpensive automated streamflow monitoring system

2020· article· en· W3017129813 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew C. L. LeGrand, James J. Luce, Robert A. Metcalfe, J. M. Buttle

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent University
FundersOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
KeywordsStreamflowRating curveComputer scienceParticle image velocimetryEnvironmental scienceField (mathematics)STREAMSRange (aeronautics)Flow (mathematics)Remote sensingHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeologyGeographyPhysicsMathematicsCartographyGeomorphologyDrainage basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Estimating streamflow is time and labour intensive due to the necessity of developing a rating curve. The development of a rating curve involves acquiring in‐field measurements of streamflow across a wide range of flow levels, which can be costly and impractical in remote regions with limited seasonal access. Here we showcase an automated system which estimates streamflow multiple times each day, greatly facilitating the development of rating curves for remote or seasonally inaccessible sites. The system uses an emerging technique referred to as particle image velocimetry (PIV) to track the movement of objects and flow structure features on the mobile water surface to generate velocity vector grids. Velocity grids were used to calculate streamflow and facilitate the development of a rating curve. This work contributes to our field‐based knowledge for using automated PIV systems to estimate streamflow in small streams (<5 m wide) using automatically distributed particles.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207