MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385250917 · doi:10.1029/2023gl104255

Inferring Hillslope Groundwater Recharge Ratios From the Storage‐Discharge Relation

2023· article· en· W4385250917 on OpenAlexafffund
David Dralle, W. Jesse Hahm, Daniella Rempe

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceSimon Fraser University
KeywordsGroundwater rechargeHydrology (agriculture)GroundwaterWater storageGeologyDepression-focused rechargeGroundwater dischargePrecipitationWeatheringEnvironmental scienceStreamflowAquiferGeomorphologyDrainage basinGeographyMeteorologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurate observation of hillslope groundwater storage and instantaneous recharge remains difficult due to limited monitoring and the complexity of mountainous landscapes. We introduce a novel storage‐discharge method to estimate hillslope recharge and the recharge ratio—the fraction of precipitation that recharges groundwater. The method, which relies on streamflow data, is corroborated by independent measurements of water storage dynamics inside the Rivendell experimental hillslope at the Eel River Critical Zone Observatory, California, USA. We find that along‐hillslope patterns in bedrock weathering and plant‐driven storage dynamics govern the seasonal evolution of recharge ratios. Thinner weathering profiles and smaller root‐zone storage deficits near‐channel are replenished before larger ridge‐top deficits. Consequently, precipitation progressively activates groundwater from channel to divide, with an attendant increase in recharge ratios throughout the wet season. Our novel approach and process observations offer valuable insights into controls on groundwater recharge, enhancing our understanding of a critical flux in the hydrologic cycle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→