Comparing isotopic groundwater age measurements with simulated groundwater ages: example of the Abbotsford–Sumas Aquifer (USA and Canada) and application
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Elevated nitrate concentrations have been documented since the 1970s within the trans‐national Abbotsford–Sumas aquifer, situated in the central Fraser Valley of southern British Columbia, Canada, and northern Washington State, United States. Nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L NO 3 –N are commonly observed in the monitoring wells. A groundwater model is used in this study to conduct a particle tracking analysis to estimate groundwater travel times and compare these with groundwater ages determined from 3 H/ 3 He concentrations measured in several monitoring wells. Groundwater ages estimated from particle tracking show excellent agreement with measured ages (slope=1), although there is scatter ( R 2 =0.76), reflecting the complexity of the travel pathways and ambiguities in groundwater ages because of mixing. An assessment of the efficacy of recommended nutrient management practices, which were implemented in 1992 to reduce nitrogen loading, suggests that wells shallower than about 20 m should be monitoring a decrease in nitrate concentration. However, persistent elevated nitrate concentrations even at shallow depths point to the lingering effects of a remnant manure–nitrate signature in combination with continued high loading.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it