Identifying watershed-scale barriers to groundwater flow: Lineaments in the Canadian Shield
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research Article| March 01, 2009 Identifying watershed-scale barriers to groundwater flow: Lineaments in the Canadian Shield Tom Gleeson; Tom Gleeson † 1Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada †E-mail: tom@ce.queensu.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Kent Novakowski Kent Novakowski 1Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Tom Gleeson † 1Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada Kent Novakowski 1Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada †E-mail: tom@ce.queensu.ca Publisher: Geological Society of America Received: 09 Apr 2007 Revision Received: 21 Feb 2008 Accepted: 22 Apr 2008 First Online: 02 Mar 2017 Online ISSN: 1943-2674 Print ISSN: 0016-7606 © 2009 Geological Society of America GSA Bulletin (2009) 121 (3-4): 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1130/B26241.1 Article history Received: 09 Apr 2007 Revision Received: 21 Feb 2008 Accepted: 22 Apr 2008 First Online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation Tom Gleeson, Kent Novakowski; Identifying watershed-scale barriers to groundwater flow: Lineaments in the Canadian Shield. GSA Bulletin 2009;; 121 (3-4): 333–347. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/B26241.1 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGSA Bulletin Search Advanced Search Abstract Lineament identification is a standard but controversial hydrogeologic practice. In this study, we present a rigorous examination of the hydrology of lineaments in a crystalline bedrock setting. Lineaments are reinterpreted as watershed-scale hydraulic barriers, in contrast to previous interpretations as fractured conduits that focus recharge and flow. In the study area, an ~900 km2 watershed underlain by the granitic and gneissic terrain of the Canadian Shield, bedrock lineaments are associated with linear lake shores and perennial wetland complexes. Lineaments were identified using a robust multi-image method and characterized by remote sensing, fracture mapping, drilling, hydraulic characterization, and numerical simulation of a coupled groundwater–surface-water system. Results indicate that two principal lineament sets are oriented parallel to fracture and fault orientations, and thus lineaments are interpreted as structural features, either fault zones or fracture zones with limited displacement. Faulted lineaments are more effectively identified by digital elevation model (DEM) topographic data rather than Landsat tonal imagery. Hydrogeological characterization and geomatic data indicate that the fractured bedrock underlying lineaments is composed of poorly connected zones of reduced permeability due to fault zone and/or fluid flow processes. Field data and numerical simulations suggest that lineament areas are barriers to recharge and flow in this setting as a result of permeability reduction. Integrated data sets and models of lineament permeability that are geologically realistic result in a better understanding of fractured bedrock aquifers and patterns of fluid flow in the brittle uppermost crust. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».