Accounting for Aquifer Heterogeneity from Geological Data to Management Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nested workflow of multiple-point geostatistics (MPG) and sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS) was tested on a study area of 6 km(2) located about 20 km northwest of Quebec City, Canada. In order to assess its geological and hydrogeological parameter heterogeneity and to provide tools to evaluate uncertainties in aquifer management, direct and indirect field measurements are used as inputs in the geostatistical simulations to reproduce large and small-scale heterogeneities. To do so, the lithological information is first associated to equivalent hydrogeological facies (hydrofacies) according to hydraulic properties measured at several wells. Then, heterogeneous hydrofacies (HF) realizations are generated using a prior geological model as training image (TI) with the MPG algorithm. The hydraulic conductivity (K) heterogeneity modeling within each HF is finally computed using SGS algorithm. Different K models are integrated in a finite-element hydrogeological model to calculate multiple transport simulations. Different scenarios exhibit variations in mass transport path and dispersion associated with the large- and small-scale heterogeneity respectively. Three-dimensional maps showing the probability of overpassing different thresholds are presented as examples of management tools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".