Tectonic evolution of a Paleozoic thrust fault influences the hydrogeology of a fractured rock aquifer, northeastern Appalachian foreland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In polyorogenic regions, the superposition of structures during a protracted tectonic history produces complex fractured bedrock aquifers. Thrust‐faulted regions, in particular, have complicated permeability patterns that affect groundwater flow paths, quantity, and quality. In the Appalachian foreland of northwestern Vermont, numerous bedrock wells that are spatially related to the Paleozoic Hinesburg thrust have elevated naturally occurring radioactivity and/or low yields. The association of groundwater quality and quantity issues with this thrust was a unique opportunity to investigate its structural and hydrogeologic framework. The Hinesburg thrust juxtaposed metamorphic rocks of the hanging wall with sedimentary rocks of the footwall during the Ordovician. It was then deformed by two orthogonal Devonian fold sets and was fractured during the Cretaceous. Median well yields in the hanging wall aquifer are significantly lower than those of the footwall aquifer, consistent with the respective permeability contrast between metamorphic and carbonate rocks. For wells drilled through the Hinesburg thrust, those completed closest (vertically) to the thrust have the highest median yields, whereas others completed farther below have yields in the footwall range. The geochemical signature of the hanging wall and footwall aquifers correlates with their whole‐rock geochemistry. The hanging wall aquifer is enriched in alpha radiation, Na+K‐Cl, Ba, and Sr, whereas the footwall aquifer is enriched in Ca‐Mg‐HCO3 and alkalinity. Wells that penetrated the Hinesburg thrust generally have hanging wall geochemical signatures. A simple hydrogeologic model for the permeability evolution of the Hinesburg thrust involves the ductile emplacement of a low‐K hanging wall onto a high‐K footwall, with subsequent modification by fractures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".