A Comparison of Two Stochastic Inverse Methods in a Field‐Scale Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse modeling is a useful tool in ground water flow modeling studies. The most frequent difficulties encountered when using this technique are the lack of conditioning information (e.g., heads and transmissivities), the uncertainty in available data, and the nonuniqueness of the solution. These problems can be addressed and quantified through a stochastic Monte Carlo approach. The aim of this work was to compare the applicability of two stochastic inverse modeling approaches in a field-scale application. The multi-scaling (MS) approach uses a downscaling parameterization procedure that is not based on geostatistics. The pilot point (PP) approach uses geostatistical random fields as initial transmissivity values and an experimental variogram to condition the calibration. The studied area (375 km2) is part of a regional aquifer, northwest of Montreal in the St. Lawrence lowlands (southern Québec). It is located in limestone, dolomite, and sandstone formations, and is mostly a fractured porous medium. The MS approach generated small errors on heads, but the calibrated transmissivity fields did not reproduce the variogram of observed transmissivities. The PP approach generated larger errors on heads but better reproduced the spatial structure of observed transmissivities. The PP approach was also less sensitive to uncertainty in head measurements. If reliable heads are available but no transmissivities are measured, the MS approach provides useful results. If reliable transmissivities with a well inferred spatial structure are available, then the PP approach is a better alternative. This approach however must be used with caution if measured transmissivities are not reliable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".