The importance of groundwater to the upper Columbia River floodplain wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Columbia Wetland complex is a rare example of a North American river system with relatively little disturbance from human infrastructure and is the only undammed portion of the main 2000 km stretch of the Columbia River. Declining river flows in western North America, including the upper Columbia River, have reduced the area of open water wetlands in the floodplain and raised concern that the Columbia Wetlands will not remain viable under increasing climate change. In this study we use water isotopes (δ18O and δ2H) and electrical conductivity to quantify the proportion of groundwater, river water and precipitation contributing to wetland water balance, as well as the role of evaporation, in the Columbia Wetlands through the spring, summer and fall of 2019. We found strong seasonality of water input sources. Groundwater and precipitation were important in spring and fall, while river water was dominant during the summer. An individual wetlands’ location in the floodplain as well as relative connectivity to the river channels influenced its seasonal pattern of input sources. Quantifying the relative contributions of the main input water sources to wetlands provides important new understanding of hydrologic connectivity in the Columbia Wetlands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".