MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1666671662 · doi:10.1029/2005wr004589

Simulation of groundwater recharge dynamics in partially saturated fractured soils incorporating spatially variable fracture apertures

2006· article· en· W1666671662 on OpenAlexaff
Edwin E. Cey, David L. Rudolph, René Therrien

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwater rechargeHydraulic conductivityPermeability (electromagnetism)Fracture (geology)Geotechnical engineeringVadose zoneGroundwaterInfiltration (HVAC)GeologySoil waterSoil scienceGroundwater flowWater contentWater flowMaterials scienceAquiferComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, numerical simulations are used to analyze complex flow behavior in partially saturated fractured low‐permeability soils during groundwater recharge. The aim is to develop an understanding of the influence of fracture‐matrix interactions and different physical parameters on flow processes. A three‐dimensional discrete fracture model is used to simulate infiltration into a variably saturated porous block containing a single vertical rough‐walled fracture. The results show that flow system dynamics are considerably more sensitive to matrix properties, namely, hydraulic conductivity and antecedent moisture content, than fracture properties. A high degree of fracture‐matrix interaction restricts preferential flow down the fracture and decreases the influence of fracture roughness. The study results suggest that aperture variability within individual fractures may be neglected when modeling water flow through unsaturated soils. Nevertheless, the fracture plays an important role in water movement and controls the vertical flux of a surface applied tracer.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207