Comparison of Aquifer Sustainability Under Groundwater Administrations in Oklahoma and Texas1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mittelstet, Aaron R., Michael D. Smolen, Garey A. Fox, and Damian C. Adams, 2011. Comparison of Aquifer Sustainability Under Groundwater Administrations in Oklahoma and Texas. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 1-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00524.x Abstract: We compared two approaches to administration of groundwater law on a hydrologic model of the North Canadian River, an alluvial aquifer in northwestern Oklahoma. Oklahoma limits pumping rates to retain 50% aquifer saturated thickness after 20 years of groundwater use. The Texas Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District’s (GCD) rules limit pumping to a rate that consumes no more than 50% of saturated thickness in 50 years, with reevaluation and readjustment of permits every 5 years. Using a hydrologic model (MODFLOW), we simulated river-groundwater interaction and aquifer dynamics under increasing levels of “development” (i.e., increasing groundwater withdrawals). Oklahoma’s approach initially would limit groundwater extraction more than the GCD approach, but the GCD approach would be more protective in the long run. Under Oklahoma rules more than half of aquifer storage would be depleted when development reaches 65%. Reevaluation of permits under the Texas Panhandle GCD approach would severely limit pumping as the 50% level is approached. Both Oklahoma and Texas Panhandle GCD approaches would deplete alluvial base flow at approximately 10% development. Results suggest periodic review of permits could protect aquifer storage and river base flow. Modeling total aquifer storage is more sensitive to recharge rate and aquifer hydraulic conductivity than to specific yield, while river leakage is most sensitive to aquifer hydraulic conductivity followed by specific yield.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".