MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1679022497 · doi:10.1007/s10040-014-1225-y

Recharge mixing in a complex distributary spring system in the Missouri Ozarks, USA

2015· article· en· W1679022497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin V. Miller, Robert N. Lerch, Christopher G. Groves, Jason Polk

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrogeology Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicKarst Systems and Hydrogeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWestern Kentucky University
KeywordsGroundwater rechargeHydrology (agriculture)Spring (device)BaseflowGeologyKarstGroundwaterAquiferDrainage basinGeographyGeotechnical engineeringStreamflowPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toronto Springs is a complex distributary karst spring system with 11 perennial springs in the Missouri Ozarks, USA. Carroll Cave (CC) and Wet Glaize Creek (WG) were previously identified as principal recharge sources. This study (1) characterized physical and chemical properties of springs and recharge sources; (2) developed end-member mixing models to estimate contributing proportions of CC and WG; and (3) created a conceptual model for the system. Samples analyzed for major ions and specific conductivity, in conjunction with a rotating continuous monitoring program to identify statistically comparable baseflow conditions, were used to assess differences among the sites. Monitoring data showed that the springs differed depending upon recharge proportions. Cluster analysis of average ion concentrations supported the choice of CC and WG as mixing model end members. Results showed a range in the proportions of the recharge sources, from surface-water to groundwater dominated. A conceptual model suggests that a system of distinct conduits beneath the WG flood plain transmits water to the individual springs. These conduits controlled the end-member recharge contributions and water chemistry of the springs. Interpretation of relative proportions of recharge contributions extends existing knowledge of karst hydrologic geometry beyond that of point-to-point connections to revealing complex surface-water/groundwater mixing in heterogeneous distributary spring systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrogeology JournalSame topicKarst Systems and HydrogeologyFrench-language works237,207