MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON GROUND WATER IN LANSING, MICHIGAN<sup>1</sup>

2003· article· en· W1986367766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas E. Croley, Carol L. Luukkonen

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwater rechargeEnvironmental scienceStreamflowGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)AquiferClimate changeGeneral Circulation ModelWater resourcesHydrological modellingClimatologyGeologyGeographyDrainage basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Computer simulations involving general circulation models, a hydrologic modeling system, and a ground water flow model indicate potential impacts of selected climate change projections on ground water levels in the Lansing, Michigan, area. General circulation models developed by the Canadian Climate Centre and the Hadley Centre generated meteorology estimates for 1961 through 1990 (as a reference condition) and for the 20 years centered on 2030 (as a changed climate condition). Using these meteorology estimates, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory's hydrologic modeling system produced corresponding period streamflow simulations. Ground water recharge was estimated from the streamflow simulations and from variables derived from the general circulation models. The U.S. Geological Survey developed a numerical ground water flow model of the Saginaw and glacial aquifers in the Tri‐County region surrounding Lansing, Michigan. Model simulations, using the ground water recharge estimates, indicate changes in ground water levels. Within the Lansing area, simulated ground water levels in the Saginaw aquifer declined under the Canadian predictions and increased under the Hadley.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207