MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414006990 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.c561

Prioritization of Tlawng River Basin of Mizoram Based on Erodibility Through Morphometric Analysis using GIS Technique

2025· article· en· W4414006990 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tarak Golom, Arnab Bandyopadhyay, Aditi Bhadra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrioritizationDrainage basinStructural basinEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Remote sensingWater resource managementGeologyGeographyCartographyGeomorphologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prioritizing watersheds based on erodibility holds significant importance, particularly in regions like the Tlawng basin, where the landscape is characterized by undulating hills and varying slopes along with annual heavy monsoon rains. This study involved conducting morphometric analysis and prioritizing 23 sub-basins within the Tlawng basin in Mizoram, utilizing Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques. ArcGIS software was employed to determine some fundamental morphometric parameters within each sub-watershed such as its basin area, perimeter, length of the basin, stream number, stream order, and stream length. Furthermore, the morphometric parameters pertaining to aerial and relief features were computed utilizing a range of established formulae. The findings reveal that the basin is characterized by a 5th order stream, with stream order 1 being the most prevalent. Subsequently, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software to identify the principal components for prioritizing the sub-watersheds. Three parameters, namely stream frequency, compactness constant, and relative relief were identified as the principal components. Based on their ranking values, the compound parameter was computed, which was then used to assign the final rank to each sub-watershed in terms of erodibility. According to the findings, Sub-watershed 3, which had the lowest compound parameter value at 3.333, was assigned the top rank of 1, indicating its highest level of priority. Conversely, Sub-watershed 9 was given the lowest rank of 23, owing to its relatively higher compound parameter value of 22.333. The findings suggest that soil conservation efforts should initially be targeted at sub-watersheds with higher rankings, as they are relatively more susceptible to erosion and its related risks, and then implemented in the remaining watershed in the order of their priority. This prioritized approach will ensure the effective management and mitigation of soil erosion issues within the watershed.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicGroundwater and Watershed AnalysisFrench-language works237,207