Uncertainty in 1D Heat‐Flow Analysis to Estimate Groundwater Discharge to a Stream
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
Temperature measurements have been used by a variety of researchers to gain insight into groundwater discharge patterns. However, much of this research has reduced the problem to heat and fluid flow in one dimension for ease of analysis. This approach is seemingly at odds with the goal of determining spatial variability in specific discharge, which implies that the temperature field will vary in more than one dimension. However, it is unclear how important the resulting discrepancies are in the context of determining groundwater discharge to surface water bodies. In this study, the importance of these variations is examined by testing two popular one-dimensional analytical solutions with stochastic models of heat and fluid flow in a two-dimensional porous medium. For cases with low degrees of heterogeneity in hydraulic conductivity, acceptable results are possible for specific discharges between 10(-7) and 10(-5) m/s. However, conduction into areas with specific discharges less than 10(-7) m/s from adjacent areas can lead to significant errors. In some of these cases, the one-dimensional solutions produced estimates of specific discharge of nearly 10(-6) m/s. This phenomenon is more likely in situations with greater degrees of heterogeneity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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