Complex networks, streamflow, and hydrometric monitoring system design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Network theory is applied to an array of streamflow gauges located in the Coast Mountains of British Columbia and Yukon, Canada. The goal of the analysis is to assess whether insights from this branch of mathematical graph theory can be meaningfully applied to hydrometric data, and more specifically, whether it may help guide decisions concerning stream gauge placement so that the full complexity of the regional hydrology is efficiently captured. The streamflow data, when represented as a complex network, has a global clustering coefficient and average shortest path length consistent with small-world networks, which are a class of stable and efficient networks common in nature, but the results did not clearly suggest a scale-free network. Stability helps ensure that the network is robust to the loss of nodes; in the context of a streamflow network, stability is interpreted as insensitivity to station removal at random. Community structure is also evident in the streamflow network. A community detection algorithm identified 10 separate communities, each of which appears to be defined by the combination of its median seasonal flow regime (pluvial, nival, hybrid, or glacial, which in this region in turn mainly reflects basin elevation) and geographic proximity to other communities (reflecting shared or different daily meteorological forcing). Betweenness analyses additionally suggest a handful of key stations which serve as bridges between communities and might therefore be highly valued. We propose that an idealized sampling network should sample high-betweenness stations, as well as small-membership communities which are by definition rare or undersampled relative to other communities, while retaining some degree of redundancy to maintain network robustness.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".