Fill‐spill‐merge terrain analysis reveals topographical controls on Canadian river runoff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are a crucial tool for watershed analysis, offering valuable insights into landscape‐scale hydrology. Traditional watershed delineations are derived by filling a DEM to force flow paths through topographic depressions, thus creating a continuous drainage network throughout the domain. However, this approach is challenged in landscapes with abundant real‐world depression storage, intermittently flowing stream channels, and internally drained lake basin (endorheic basin) such as the Canadian Shield (CS). The CS landscape is characterized by “fill‐and‐spill” surface water hydrology, with runoff flow paths controlled by bedrock sills and rocky cascades that overtop when water levels are high but cease flowing when water levels are low. To better represent these intermittent drainage networks, we apply a non‐traditional, less‐aggressive DEM filling model (Fill‐Spill‐Merge or FSM) to a continental‐scale DEM (MERIT) all of Canada. To ensure adequate filling of DEM noise while also preserving real‐world topographic depressions, we propose a climatic method to initialize a key FSM parameter (“runoff depth”) that calibrates observed discharges from 1690 Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) river gauges with climate model P‐ET (precipitation minus evapotranspiration) data. Our application of FSM to all 1690 gauged watersheds identifies 916 significant topographical control points controlling >20% and/or 1000 km2 of their respective areas. The Geikie, Snare, Kazan, Tazin, and Seal rivers may be particularly affected, with impacted watershed areas ranging from 12% to 64%. Extending this approach to ungauged parts of the CS reveals an additional 635 significant topographical control points. Ensemble climate model projections suggest that around 10% of these control points are currently dry but will become active by 2100. This research explicitly determines how CS watersheds are affected by fill‐and‐spill hydrology, and demonstrates the importance of accurate terrain modelling for delineating surface water flow paths in depressional landscapes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".