MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311992946 · doi:10.2166/nh.2022.079

Surface-groundwater exchange between a wetland, sandur, and lava field in southeastern Iceland

2022· article· en· W4311992946 on OpenAlexafffund
Aiesha Aggarwal, Kathy L. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork University
KeywordsOutwash plainGroundwaterSpring (device)WetlandHydrology (agriculture)Surface waterPrecipitationAquiferEnvironmental scienceGeologyGlacial periodGeomorphologyEcologyGeographyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In May 2019, over 50 springs were identified at a sandur-lava field–wetland complex in Southeast Iceland and a subset was selected for further investigation including monitoring water levels, discharge, and water chemistry. Between May and September 2019, springs at the study site had relatively stable water levels and temperatures (4–5 °C), although heavy rains (>10 mm) corresponded with increased water levels and/or temperatures at some springs. Together, the water level, temperature, and stable isotope data suggest that the springs at the study site are fed by older groundwater from an aquifer that is recharged by precipitation. Spikes in water level indicated that at least one spring at the edge of the sandur also received floodwater and shallow subsurface flows from the glacial-fed Brunná River. One wetland spring was further monitored over the water year (October 2019 to October 2020). Like other springs, water levels and temperatures remained relatively stable, fluctuating with inputs of precipitation. Longer-term studies will be needed to gain an improved understanding of seasonal spring vulnerability to climate change and their role in the functioning of a coastal wetland in Southeast Iceland.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology researchSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207