Fracture network analysis of the St-Eustache quarry, Quebec, Canada, for groundwater resources management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A detailed structural survey has been conducted on a fractured sedimentary rock formation in the St-Eustache quarry, Quebec, Canada, to supplement a hydrogeological study. The two main types of discontinuities in the quarry are horizontal bedding planes and vertical joints. The fracture network is classified as a stratabound network that could be considered as an equivalent porous medium (EPM) for groundwater flow for a volume of rock of 25 to 100 m3. Using detailed statistical data of the fracture network, a geometric model is used to infer a range of hydraulic conductivity values for the low permeability fractures not directly measured with hydraulic tests and treated as EPM for their interpretation. This analysis shows that the vertical and horizontal fractures have about the same permeability in the rock mass, except for a few high hydraulic-conductivity bedding planes. Hydraulic conductivity of single fractures ranges between 1.7 × 10−3and 1.7 × 10−1m/s. The porosity of the bulk rock mass inferred from fracture spacing measurements was found to be between 0.03% and 0.3%. Because vertical boreholes provide limited information on vertical fractures, the interpretation of hydraulic tests at the site was greatly improved by the structural surveys.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".