MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094691604 · doi:10.2134/jeq2007.0605

Hydrogeological Study of an Anti‐Tank Range

2008· article· en· W2094691604 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michel Mailloux, Richard Martel, Uta Gabriel, René Lefebvre, Sonia Thiboutot, Guy Ampleman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferHydrogeologyPlumeGroundwater rechargeGeologyHydrology (agriculture)GroundwaterGroundwater flowBase flowEnvironmental scienceSpring (device)Flow (mathematics)Water wellGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringMeteorologyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arnhem Anti-Tank Range (Canadian Forces Base [CFB] Valcartier, Canada, in operation since the 1970s) has been characterized, including the drilling, installation, and characterization of 25 wells and a ground-penetrating radar survey. The observed particular features of this site include highly variable flow velocities (from < 3 to 1200 m/yr) and transient flow regime in the regional aquifer below the contaminant source zone of the impact area, sharp flow direction shifts, discontinuous stratigraphy and a local perched aquifer. A transient ground water flow model permitted us to understand how the complex hydrogeological setting shapes contaminant transport in the regional aquifer. The model explains the highly variable energetic material (EM) concentrations measured in the plume with peaks associated to spring and to a lesser extent to fall recharge events. As a conclusion from this work, the authors suggest that the characterization of contaminant sources on slopes should extend over all seasons to be sure to detect potential transient flow conditions and variable contaminant concentrations.

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 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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207