Comparison of Approaches for Predicting Solute Transport: Sandbox Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this paper was to compare three approaches for predicting solute transport. The approaches include: (1) an effective parameter/macrodispersion approach (Gelhar and Axness 1983); (2) a heterogeneous approach using ordinary kriging based on core samples; and (3) a heterogeneous approach based on hydraulic tomography. We conducted our comparison in a heterogeneous sandbox aquifer. The aquifer was first characterized by taking 48 core samples to obtain local-scale hydraulic conductivity (K). The spatial statistics of these K values were then used to calculate the effective parameters. These K values and their statistics were also used for kriging to obtain a heterogeneous K field. In parallel, we performed a hydraulic tomography survey using hydraulic tests conducted in a dipole fashion with the drawdown data analyzed using the sequential successive linear estimator code (Yeh and Liu 2000) to obtain a K distribution (or K tomogram). The effective parameters and the heterogeneous K fields from kriging and hydraulic tomography were used in forward simulations of a dipole conservative tracer test. The simulated and observed breakthrough curves and their temporal moments were compared. Results show an improvement in predictions of drawdown behavior and tracer transport when the K tomogram from hydraulic tomography was used. This suggests that the high-resolution prediction of solute transport is possible without collecting a large number of small-scale samples to estimate flow and transport properties that are costly to obtain at the field scale.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".