The new ‘surface storage’ concept versus the old ‘sponge effect’ concept: application to the analysis of the spatio-temporal variability of the annual daily maximum flow characteristics in southern Quebec (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study confronts the new concept of ‘surface storage’ with the old concept of ‘sponge effect’ to explain the spatio-temporal variability of the annual daily maximum flows measured in 17 watersheds of southern Quebec during the period 1930–2019. The new concept takes into account the hydrological impacts of wetlands and other topographic components of the landscape (lakes, depressions, ditches, etc.) while that of the sponge effect only takes into account the hydrological impacts of wetlands. With regard to spatial variability, the area of wetlands and other water bodies is the variable best correlated negatively with the magnitude but positively with the duration of flows. As for the temporal variability, the application of the long-term trend tests revealed a significant increase in the magnitude and, to a lesser extent, the duration of the flows occurring in the watersheds of the north shore characterized by a greater area of wetlands and other water bodies (>5%). This increase is explained by the fact that the storage capacity of these land types, which remains unchanged over time, does not make it possible to store the surplus runoff water brought by the increase in rainfall during the snowmelt season.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".