Interpretation of a Pumping Test with Interference from a Neighboring Well
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In confined aquifers, the influence of neighboring active wells is often neglected when interpreting a pumping test. This can, however, lead to an erroneous interpretation of the pumping test data. This paper presents simple methods to evaluate the transmissivity (T) and storativity (S) of a confined aquifer under Theis conditions, when an interfering well starts pumping in the neighborhood of the tested well before the beginning of the test. These new methods yield better estimates of the T and especially S values than when the interfering well influence is neglected. They also permit to distinguish between interfering wells and other deviations from the Cooper-Jacob straight line, such as impermeable boundaries. The new methods were then applied on data obtained from a numerical model. The new methods require knowing the pumping rate of the interfering well and the time elapsed since the pumping started in each well, but contrary to previous methods, they do not require the aquifer natural level at the beginning of the test, which is often unknown if the interfering well has started pumping before the tested well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".