What maximum permeability can be measured with a monitoring well?
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
The PVC screens of recent monitoring wells (MWs) have thin slots and a low open area, usually in the 2–8% range. The MW screen and filter pack may cause important head losses which are not taken into account when interpreting the data of permeability tests performed using the MW. The equivalent hydraulic conductivity K of usual PVC screens was defined by hydraulic tests in a water tank, which have shown that gas micro-bubbles, a common problem in MWs and filter packs, contribute to increase the parasitic head losses. Closed-form equations and numerical models are used to explain by how much a field permeability test in a MW under evaluates an aquifer K value due to parasitic head losses in the screen and filter pack. The MW can properly measure the local soil K value only if it is markedly lower than the maximum MW value as obtained in a water tank. The MW measuring capacity can reach 5 × 10− 3 m/s for large slots and deaired water, but is most often between 10− 5 and 10− 4 m/s for small slots in field conditions, and it can be only 10− 6 m/s for poorly designed and installed MWs. The limited measuring capacity may yield artificial permeability scale effects as often registered in environmental studies.
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