MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating Ground Water Flux into Large Lakes: Application in the Hamilton Harbor, Western Lake Ontario

2000· article· en· W2039916454 on OpenAlex
F. Edwin Harvey, David L. Rudolph, Shaun K. Frape

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfundal zoneGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)ShoreFlux (metallurgy)Environmental scienceLittoral zoneGeologyPiezometerWater balanceSedimentSurface waterAquiferOceanographyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the last two decades, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of evaluating ground water's contribution to lakes. As a result, a number of techniques have been developed for measuring hydraulic properties across lake bottoms, primarily in the littoral zone. However, for larger, deeper lakes such as the Great Lakes these techniques are impractical in the profundal zone. As a result, many water balance calculations in these settings omit the ground water component altogether owing to the difficulties encountered in making the necessary hydraulic observations across the deeper lake bottom sediments. In this study, a methodology is developed for determining the flux into large, deep lakes using a combination of existing and recently developed techniques. The methodology is applied to the Hamilton Harbor, a natural bay at the western end of Lake Ontario, to estimate the ground water contribution to the harbor's water budget. Hydraulic gradients were monitored in 37 piezometers within the harbor during 1993 and 1994. Calculated hydraulic gradients, along with sediment hydraulic conductivities measured or estimated using a number of techniques, are used to estimate ground water flux to the harbor through Thiessen polygon weighting. Measured hydraulic gradients ranged from −0.333 to 0.430, the majority being upward indicating ground water discharge conditions. Gradients were varied across the harbor and increased in magnitude closer to shore. The total ground water contribution to the harbor was estimated to be 2.1 × 10 7 m 3 /yr. Compared with other hydrological components, ground water was slightly larger than the yearly precipitation input, and approximately 8 % of the total surface inflows to the harbor, and 2 % of the total surface outflow through the Burlington ship canal, which connects the harbor to Lake Ontario. The computed ground water flux suggests that despite the fact that ground water flux to large lakes may typically be a smaller input than surface water inputs, it is still a significant component of the overall water budget and should not be automatically omitted from water balance calculations.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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