MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992695344 · doi:10.1002/hyp.1507

Modelling two‐dimensional steady‐state groundwater flow and flow sensitivity to boundary conditions in blanket peat complexes

2004· article· en· W1992695344 on OpenAlexaffabout
David R. Lapen, Jonathan S. Price, Robert G. Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooQueen's UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBogPeatWater tableGroundwater rechargeGroundwater flowHydrology (agriculture)GroundwaterHydraulic conductivityGeologyAquiferWater flowSubsurface flowDrainageEnvironmental scienceDrawdown (hydrology)Soil scienceGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study used a two‐dimensional steady‐state finite‐element groundwater flow model to simulate groundwater flow in two Newfoundland blanket peat complexes and to examine flow system sensitivity to changes in water table recharge and aquifer properties. The modelling results were examined within the context of peat‐forming processes in the two complexes. Modelled flow compared favourably with observed flow. The sensitivity analyses suggested that more highly decomposed bog peat along bog margins probably has/had a positive impact on net peat accumulation within bog interiors. Peat with lower hydraulic conductivity along bog margins effectively impedes lateral drainage, localizes water table drawdown to extreme bog margins, and elevates water tables along bog interiors. Peat formation and elevated water tables in adjacent poor fens/laggs currently rely on placic and ortstein horizons impeding vertical drainage and water flow inputs from adjacent bogs. Modest reductions in atmospheric recharge were found to govern bog‐flow‐system geometries in a way that would adversely affect paludification processes in adjacent fens/laggs. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207