Author responses to referee comments on “Fifty years of recorded hillslope runoff on seasonally-frozen ground: The Swift Current, Saskatchewan, Canada dataset” by Anna E. Coles et al.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SpenceRC1.1 In this paper, the authors summarize a hydrological and chemistry dataset from a set of experimental hillslopes in Saskatchewan, Canada.It is a very nice dataset, which deserves to be catalogued and preserved.Its value is certainly enhanced by the long period of record.The data are easily accessible from Government of Canada open data websites.Upon reading the paper, I felt like there should be more description of the data, and more information on the methods used to collect it.As it is now, the paper does not provide enough information, particularly of the latter, for new users of the data to maximize its usage.My comments, both major and minor, are below.AC1.1 Thank you for your comments.We couldn't agree more that this dataset deserves to be preserved and used for future studies.We agree in hindsight that there should have been more information on methods and descriptive statistics of the data.We respond to your individual comments pertaining to this and other aspects, below.MC1.1 We have edited the revised manuscript to address all of your comments.Specific changes detailed below.RC1.2 Page 1 Line 10: perhaps say "nutrient flux (or concentration or export)" AC1.1 Agreed.MC1.1 Edited to "nutrient concentrations" RC1.3 Page 1 Line 13: Perhaps pick one of "edge of field" or "hillslope" and stick with it throughout the paper.AC1.2 Agreed.MC1.2There was one occurrence of "edge-offield" and one of "field" in the manuscript.Changed these to "hillslope" to be consistent with the rest of the manuscript.RC1.4 Page 1: Line 20: The digital elevation data that are mentioned here should be introduced earlier in the abstract.AC1.4 Agreed.MC1.4 Added a line earlier in the abstract to say that digital elevation data are available for the three hillslopes at a 2 m resolution, and also at a 0.25 m resolution for one of the hillslopes (Hillslope 2) C2 ESSDD Interactive
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 | 0.008 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.323 | 0.157 |
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".