MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Unusual and Large Drawdown Response of Buried‐Valley Aquifers to Pumping

2011· article· en· W1969385569 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Garth van der Kamp, H. Maathuis

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsCameco (Canada)
FundersSaskPower
KeywordsAquiferDrawdown (hydrology)Aquifer testGeologyAquifer propertiesWell test (oil and gas)Water wellSurficial aquiferCone of depressionGroundwaterGroundwater flowSlug testArtesian aquiferFlow (mathematics)Hydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringGroundwater rechargeMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The buried-valley aquifers that are common in the glacial deposits of the northern hemisphere are a typical case of the strip aquifers that occur in many parts of the world. Pumping from a narrow strip aquifer leads to much greater drawdown and much more distant drawdown effects then would occur in a sheet aquifer with a similar transmissivity and storage coefficient. Widely used theories for radial flow to wells, such as the Theis equation, are not appropriate for narrow strip aquifers. Previously published theory for flow to wells in semiconfined strip aquifers is reviewed and a practical format of the type curves for pumping-test analysis is described. The drawdown response of strip aquifers to pumping tests is distinctive, especially for observation wells near the pumped well. A case study is presented, based on extensive pumping test experience for the Estevan Valley Aquifer in southern Saskatchewan, Canada. Evaluation of groundwater resources in such buried-valley aquifers needs to take into account the unusually large drawdowns in response to pumping.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGround WaterSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207