MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uncertainty in 1D Heat‐Flow Analysis to Estimate Groundwater Discharge to a Stream

2010· article· en· W2125748812 on OpenAlexafffund
Grant Ferguson, Victor Bense

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Stream flowFlow (mathematics)Groundwater flowGroundwater dischargeMechanicsGeologyGeotechnical engineeringAquiferGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations58
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGround WaterSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207