MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117472579 · doi:10.1139/t05-045

Evaluating the hydraulic conductivity at three different scales within an unconfined sand aquifer at Lachenaie, Quebec

2005· article· en· W2117472579 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Robert P. Chapuis, Véronique Dallaire, Denis Marcotte, Michel Chouteau, Nelson Acevedo, Francis Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPiezometerHydraulic conductivityAquiferGradationGeotechnical engineeringGeologyPermeameterBoreholeHydraulic headSlug testGroundwaterSoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the evaluation of scale effects for the hydraulic conductivity, k, of a sand. Data were obtained using several methods at a site that was densely instrumented with piezometers within an area of about 100 m × 100 m. The 3.1–3.6 m thick sand deposit rests on a thick, nonfissured Champlain Sea clay deposit. At the small scale, local k values were obtained from the grain-size curves of sand samples and also from ground-penetrating radar surveys. At the intermediate scale, k values were obtained from field variable-head tests using piezometers. At the large scale, k values were obtained from pumping-test drawdowns in steady-state conditions. In this sand aquifer, the careful evaluations at three scales gave similar narrow distributions for the hydraulic conductivity, and therefore no scale effect is evidenced.Key words: hydraulic conductivity, sand, scale effect, gradation, monitoring well, pumping.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations78
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207