Modeling Surface Water‐Groundwater Interaction with MODFLOW: Some Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy with which MODFLOW simulates surface water-groundwater interaction is examined for connected and disconnected losing streams. We compare the effect of different vertical and horizontal discretization within MODFLOW and also compare MODFLOW simulations with those produced by HydroGeoSphere. HydroGeoSphere is able to simulate both saturated and unsaturated flow, as well as surface water, groundwater and the full coupling between them in a physical way, and so is used as a reference code to quantify the influence of some of the simplifying assumptions of MODFLOW. In particular, we show that (1) the inability to simulate negative pressures beneath disconnected streams in MODFLOW results in an underestimation of the infiltration flux; (2) a river in MODFLOW is either fully connected or fully disconnected, while in reality transitional stages between the two flow regimes exist; (3) limitations in the horizontal discretization of the river can cause a mismatch between river width and cell width, resulting in an error in the water table position under the river; and (4) because coarse vertical discretization of the aquifer is often used to avoid the drying out of cells, this may result in an error in simulating the height of the groundwater mound. Conditions under which these errors are significant are investigated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".