A Reassessment of Ground Water Flow Conditions and Specific Yield at Borden and Cape Cod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent widely accepted findings respecting the origin and nature of specific yield in unconfined aquifers rely heavily on water level changes observed during two pumping tests, one conducted at Borden, Ontario, Canada, and the other at Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The drawdown patterns observed during those tests have been taken as proof that unconfined specific yield estimates obtained from long-duration pumping tests should approach the laboratory-estimated effective porosity of representative aquifer formation samples. However, both of the original test reports included direct or referential descriptions of potential supplemental sources of pumped water that would have introduced intractable complications and errors into straightforward interpretations of the drawdown observations if actually present. Searches for evidence of previously neglected sources were performed by screening the original drawdown observations from both locations for signs of diagnostic skewing that should be present only if some of the extracted water was derived from sources other than main aquifer storage. The data screening was performed using error-guided computer assisted fitting techniques, capable of accurately sensing and simulating the effects of a wide range of non-traditional and external sources. The drawdown curves from both tests proved to be inconsistent with traditional single-source pumped aquifer models but consistent with site-specific alternatives that included significant contributions of water from external sources. The corrected pumping responses shared several important features. Unsaturated drainage appears to have ceased effectively at both locations within the first day of pumping, and estimates of specific yield stabilized at levels considerably smaller than the corresponding laboratory-measured or probable effective porosity. Separate sequential analyses of progressively later field observations gave stable and nearly constant specific yield estimates for each location, with no evidence from either test that more prolonged pumping would have induced substantially greater levels of unconfined specific yield.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".