Subsurface hydrology of tile‐drained headwater catchments: Compatibility of concepts and hydrochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Concepts and terms used in previous multidisciplinary studies of tile‐drained aquitard‐dominated catchments (TDADC) are inconsistent and confusing. We provide a well‐defined, comprehensive conceptual model of the subsurface hydrology of TDADC by selecting seven mutually compatible and consistent concepts. These concepts are: (1) groundwater as the main source of baseflow in headwater streams, (2) dominance of ‘pre‐event’ water in stormflow, (3) importance of both macropores and matrix, (4) changes in flowpaths with rate of stream discharge, (5) dominance of shallow, lateral subsurface flow, (6) interactive nature of subsurface water, (7) transpiration of groundwater. This conceptual model was successfully ‘field‐tested’ by examining data collected in a TDADC in a rural area of southern Ontario, Canada. The data consist mainly of chemical and isotopes tracers in water samples (headwater streams, groundwater, precipitation, tile water, soil‐surface water), supplemented by water levels and meteorological data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".