Estimating Flow Using Tracers and Hydraulics in Synthetic Heterogeneous Aquifers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional ground water flow is most usually estimated using Darcy's law, with hydraulic conductivities estimated from pumping tests, but can also be estimated using ground water residence times derived from radioactive tracers. The two methods agree reasonably well in relatively homogeneous aquifers but it is not clear which is likely to produce more reliable estimates of ground water flow rates in heterogeneous systems. The aim of this paper is to compare bias and uncertainty of tracer and hydraulic approaches to assess ground water flow in heterogeneous aquifers. Synthetic two-dimensional aquifers with different levels of heterogeneity (correlation lengths, variances) are used to simulate ground water flow, pumping tests, and transport of radioactive tracers. Results show that bias and uncertainty of flow rates increase with the variance of the hydraulic conductivity for both methods. The bias resulting from the nonlinearity of the concentration-time relationship can be reduced by choosing a tracer with a decay rate similar to the mean ground water residence time. The bias on flow rates estimated from pumping tests is reduced when performing long duration tests. The uncertainty on ground water flow is minimized when the sampling volume is large compared to the correlation length. For tracers, the uncertainty is related to the ratio of correlation length to the distance between sampling wells. For pumping tests, it is related to the ratio of correlation length to the pumping test's radius of influence. In regional systems, it may be easier to minimize this ratio for tracers than for pumping tests.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it