Comparison of approaches for aquifer vulnerability mapping and recharge modelling at regional and local scales, Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquifer vulnerability and direct recharge from precipitation were modelled in Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. The vulnerability study evaluated mapping approaches for regional and local scales using the DRASTIC method. Original rating tables provide sufficient detail for mapping at regional scales, where broad ranges of geologic material are present. However, modified rating tables improved spatial representation of input parameters at local scales, which is useful for local planning. Spatially-distributed recharge throughout the valley bottom was modelled using the HELP code. Average annual recharge is 65 mm/yr, with 109 mm/yr near Vernon, and 37 mm/yr near Oliver. The regional recharge map adequately captured the magnitude and distribution compared to a local map constructed using HELP (42 mm/yr); However, regional recharge results were higher compared to a local map constructed using the MIKE-SHE code (6 mm/yr). Compared to measured evapotranspiration data, HELP appears to under-estimate evapotranspiration, therefore over-estimating recharge within semi-arid regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".