MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092272215 · doi:10.1002/wat2.1475

A review of groundwater in high mountain environments

2020· review· en· W3092272215 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersGlobal Water FuturesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsGroundwater rechargeGroundwaterGeologyAquiferStreamflowHydrology (agriculture)BedrockSTREAMSGroundwater flowGlacierSnowmeltDepression-focused rechargeSubsurface flowDrainage basinGeomorphologySnowGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mountain water resources are of particular importance for downstream populations but are threatened by decreasing water storage in snowpack and glaciers. Groundwater contribution to mountain streamflow, once assumed to be relatively small, is now understood to represent an important water source to streams. This review presents an overview of research on groundwater in high mountain environments (As classified by Meybeck et al. (2001) as very high, high, and mid‐altitude mountains). Coarse geomorphic units, like talus, alluvium, and moraines, are important stores and conduits for high mountain groundwater. Bedrock aquifers contribute to catchment streamflow through shallow, weathered bedrock but also to higher order streams and central valley aquifers through deep fracture flow and mountain‐block recharge. Tracer and water balance studies have shown that groundwater contributes substantially to streamflow in many high mountain catchments, particularly during low‐flow periods. The percentage of streamflow attributable to groundwater varies greatly through time and between watersheds depending on the geology, topography, climate, and spatial scale. Recharge to high mountain aquifers is spatially variable and comes from a combination of infiltration from rain, snowmelt, and glacier melt, as well as concentrated recharge beneath losing streams, or through fractures and swallow holes. Recent advances suggest that high mountain groundwater may provide some resilience—at least temporarily—to climate‐driven glacier and snowpack recession. A paucity of field data and the heterogeneity of alpine landscapes remain important challenges, but new data sources, tracers, and modeling methods continue to expand our understanding of high mountain groundwater flow. This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change Science of Water > 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.254 · 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