Too Many Streams and Not Enough Time or Money? Analytical Depletion Functions for Streamflow Depletion Estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groundwater pumping can cause streamflow depletion by reducing groundwater discharge to streams and/or inducing surface water infiltration. Analytical and numerical models are two standard methods used to predict streamflow depletion. Numerical models require extensive data and efforts to develop robust estimates, while analytical models are easy to implement with low data and experience requirements but are limited by numerous simplifying assumptions. We have pioneered a novel approach that balances the shortcomings of analytical and numerical models: analytical depletion functions (ADFs), which include empirical functions expanding the applicability of analytical models for real-world settings. In this paper, we outline the workflow of ADFs and synthesize results showing that the accuracy of ADFs compared against a variety of numerical models from simplified, archetypal models to sophisticated, calibrated models in both steady-state and transient conditions over diverse hydrogeological landscapes, stream networks, and spatial scales. Like analytical models, ADFs are rapidly and easily implemented and have low data requirements but have significant advantages of better agreement with numerical models and better representation of complex stream geometries. Relative to numerical models, ADFs have limited ability to explore nonpumping related impacts and incorporate subsurface heterogeneity. In conclusion, ADFs can be used as a stand-alone tool or part of decision-support tools as preliminary screening of potential groundwater pumping impacts when issuing new and existing water licenses while ensuring streamflow meets environmental flow needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".