Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We appreciate Lee Trotta’s thoughtful contribution to the discussion of ground water vulnerability (Trotta 2007, this issue). Discussions such as this can only help raise the awareness of hydrogeologists of the important role that concepts of well and aquifer vulnerability have to play in the protection of our ground water resources. We thank Trotta for bringing some interesting government publications to our attention. In our attempt to be as comprehensive as possible in our review of different published methodologies for assessing well and aquifer vulnerability, we did not encounter many of the references mentioned by Trotta. They were certainly not ignored; we were simply not aware of them. We agree that government publications generally adhere to the highest professional standards, but unfortunately, as Trotta points out, they may be hard to find (they are not available at our university library). In any case, these pioneering papers should form part of the history of ground water vulnerability. The Wisconsin project appears to be particularly relevant as the approach for determining aquifer vulnerability seems to be physically based, if we understand Trotta correctly. This would likely make it the first effort using this approach. Applying the concept to aquifer vulnerability, the quantity sought would be the travel time along a vertical path from a source to the water table. In our paper (Frind et al. 2006), we extend this basic concept to the total travel time from a contaminant source to a well along a three-dimensional travel path, taking into account all hydrogeological processes along the path, including advection and dispersion, and we express well vulnerability in terms of the time taken for the contaminant to reach the well, as well as the concentration of the arriving contaminant. The concept applies to both known and unknown sources. This approach has little in common with index-based methods such as DRASTIC, and it serves a different purpose. Our comparison between physically based methods and index methods (Frind et al. 2004) used a subwatershed containing a glacial moraine, of a size much smaller than the state of Wisconsin. The index method applied in that example is presently being promoted by the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario. Identical data were used in both methods. The dramatic differences showed that this particular index method is not well suited for representing highly complex systems such as glacial moraines. In less complex aquifer systems, physical- and index-based methods may give similar results.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,640 | 0,464 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».