MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404672220 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54370-3

Widespread potential for streamflow leakage across Brazil

2024· article· en· W4404672220 on OpenAlexaff
José Gescilam S. M. Uchôa, Paulo Tarso Sanches de Oliveira, André S. Ballarin, Antônio Alves Meira Neto, Didier Gastmans, Scott Jasechko, Ying Fan, Edson Wendland

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorUniversidade de São PauloFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsStreamflowLeakage (economics)Environmental scienceGeographyEconomicsCartographyDrainage basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

River-aquifer interactions play a crucial role in water availability, influencing environmental flows and impacting climate dynamics. Where groundwater tables lie below river water levels, stream water can infiltrate into the underlying aquifer, reducing streamflow. However, the prevalence of these "losing" rivers remains poorly understood due to limited national-wide in situ observations. Here we analyze water levels in 17,972 wells across Brazil to show that most of them (55%) lie below nearby stream surfaces, implying that these nearby streams are likely seeping into the subsurface. Our results demonstrate the widespread potential for stream water losses into underlying aquifers in many regions of the country, especially in areas with extensive groundwater pumping. Our direct observations underscore the importance of conjunctively managing groundwater and surface water, and highlight the widespread risk of streamflow losses to aquifers, which could impact global water access and ecosystems that rely on rivers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207