Identifying watershed-scale barriers to groundwater flow: Lineaments in the Canadian Shield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| March 01, 2009 Identifying watershed-scale barriers to groundwater flow: Lineaments in the Canadian Shield Tom Gleeson; Tom Gleeson † 1Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada †E-mail: tom@ce.queensu.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Kent Novakowski Kent Novakowski 1Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Tom Gleeson † 1Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada Kent Novakowski 1Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada †E-mail: tom@ce.queensu.ca Publisher: Geological Society of America Received: 09 Apr 2007 Revision Received: 21 Feb 2008 Accepted: 22 Apr 2008 First Online: 02 Mar 2017 Online ISSN: 1943-2674 Print ISSN: 0016-7606 © 2009 Geological Society of America GSA Bulletin (2009) 121 (3-4): 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1130/B26241.1 Article history Received: 09 Apr 2007 Revision Received: 21 Feb 2008 Accepted: 22 Apr 2008 First Online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation Tom Gleeson, Kent Novakowski; Identifying watershed-scale barriers to groundwater flow: Lineaments in the Canadian Shield. GSA Bulletin 2009;; 121 (3-4): 333–347. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/B26241.1 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGSA Bulletin Search Advanced Search Abstract Lineament identification is a standard but controversial hydrogeologic practice. In this study, we present a rigorous examination of the hydrology of lineaments in a crystalline bedrock setting. Lineaments are reinterpreted as watershed-scale hydraulic barriers, in contrast to previous interpretations as fractured conduits that focus recharge and flow. In the study area, an ~900 km2 watershed underlain by the granitic and gneissic terrain of the Canadian Shield, bedrock lineaments are associated with linear lake shores and perennial wetland complexes. Lineaments were identified using a robust multi-image method and characterized by remote sensing, fracture mapping, drilling, hydraulic characterization, and numerical simulation of a coupled groundwater–surface-water system. Results indicate that two principal lineament sets are oriented parallel to fracture and fault orientations, and thus lineaments are interpreted as structural features, either fault zones or fracture zones with limited displacement. Faulted lineaments are more effectively identified by digital elevation model (DEM) topographic data rather than Landsat tonal imagery. Hydrogeological characterization and geomatic data indicate that the fractured bedrock underlying lineaments is composed of poorly connected zones of reduced permeability due to fault zone and/or fluid flow processes. Field data and numerical simulations suggest that lineament areas are barriers to recharge and flow in this setting as a result of permeability reduction. Integrated data sets and models of lineament permeability that are geologically realistic result in a better understanding of fractured bedrock aquifers and patterns of fluid flow in the brittle uppermost crust. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".