Comparing Approaches for Reconstructing Groundwater Levels in the Mountainous Regions of Interior British Columbia, Canada, Using Tree Ring Widths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observed groundwater level records are relatively short (<100 years), limiting long-term studies of groundwater variability that could provide valuable insight into climate change effects. This study uses tree ring data from the International Tree Ring Database (ITRDB) and groundwater level data from 22 provincial observation wells to evaluate different approaches for reconstructing groundwater levels from tree ring widths in the mountainous southern interior of British Columbia, Canada. The twenty-eight reconstruction models consider the selection of observation wells (e.g., regional average groundwater level vs. wells classified by recharge mechanism) and the search area for potential tree ring records (climate footprint vs. North American Ecoregions). Results show that if the climate footprint is used, reconstructions are statistically valid if the wells are grouped according to recharge mechanism, with streamflow-driven and high-elevation recharge-driven wells (both snowmelt-dominated) producing valid models. Of all the ecoregions considered, only the Coast Mountain Ecoregion models are statistically valid for both the regional average groundwater level and high-elevation recharge-driven systems. No model is statistically valid for low-elevation recharge-driven systems (rainfall-dominated). The longest models extend the groundwater level record to the year 1500, with the highest confidence in the later portions of the reconstructions going back to the year 1800.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".