Quantitative investigations of the hydraulic connection between a large reservoir and a buried valley aquifer in southern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative investigations, including two aquifer tests and development of a three-dimensional (3D) groundwater flow model, were required to determine the hydraulic connection between an irrigation reservoir and a buried valley aquifer in southern Alberta. Evidence of seepage was detected in the buried valley aquifer 10 km east of the Pine Coulee reservoir at the onset of filling in 1999, when the reservoir level exceeded an elevation of 1035 m above sea level (a.s.l.). Concern for an increase in the local water table and the creation of artesian conditions in the aquifer prompted this study to determine the approximate location of a seepage window that appeared to be connecting the reservoir and aquifer. Observations of hydraulic head in the aquifer during the pumping tests revealed a barrier boundary when the reservoir level was at an elevation of 1035 m a.s.l. and a recharge boundary condition when the elevation exceeded 1039 m a.s.l. These data were used to calibrate a 3D groundwater flow model, which was needed to determine the hydraulic properties and approximate location of the leakage zone. The quantitative investigation showed that seepage likely occurred through the sideslopes of the flooded coulee, rather than through the low-permeability coulee floor sediments or the embankment dam. Further simulations illustrated the expected seepage rates at various reservoir supply levels and the pumping rates required for relief wells installed in the buried valley aquifer to maintain historic aquifer hydraulic head. A brief postanalysis indicated that the forecasted pumping rates were only 15% lower than have been required to maintain preconstruction water levels in the buried valley aquifer.Key words: dams, seepage analysis, groundwater modelling, buried valley aquifer, pumping test.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".