MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067878185 · doi:10.5038/1827-806x.37.1.3

Tracer tests in karst hydrogeology and speleology

2008· article· en· W2067878185 on OpenAlexaff
Nico Goldscheider, Joe Meiman, Michiel Pronk, Christopher Smart

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Speleology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicKarst Systems and Hydrogeology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKarstCaveHydrogeologyTRACERAquiferGeologyMammothGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Electrical conduitSampling (signal processing)Groundwater flowGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringArchaeologyPaleontologyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an introduction to the fundamentals of tracing techniques and their application in cave and karst environments, illustrated by case studies from the Mammoth Cave, USA, and a small experimental site in Switzerland. The properties and limitations of the most important artificial tracers are discussed, and the available methods of tracer injection, sampling, online monitoring and laboratory analysis are presented. Fully quantitative tracer experiments result in continuous or discrete concentration-time data series, i.e. breakthrough curves, and concomitant discharge data, which make it possible to obtain detailed information about groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Within the frame of speleological investigations, tracer tests can help to resolve the active and often inaccessible part of cave and conduit networks and to obtain indications about the geometry and volume of the conduits. For hydrogeological studies, caves can in turn be used as natural experimental and monitoring sites inside the unsaturated or saturated zone of karst aquifer systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations296
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SpeleologySame topicKarst Systems and HydrogeologyFrench-language works237,207