Groundwater quality in the Chemung River, Eastern Lake Ontario, and Lower Hudson River Basins, New York, 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First posted November 10, 2015 For additional information, contact: Director, New York Water Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 425 Jordan Road Troy, NY 12180-8349 Information requests: (518) 285-5602 or visit our Web site at: http://ny.water.usgs.gov In a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, water samples were collected from 4 production wells and 4 domestic wells in the Chemung River Basin, 8 production wells and 7 domestic wells in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, and 12 production wells and 13 domestic wells in the Lower Hudson River Basin (south of the Federal Lock and Dam at Troy) in New York. All samples were collected in June, July, and August 2013 to characterize groundwater quality in these basins. The samples were collected and processed using standard USGS procedures and were analyzed for 148 physiochemical properties and constituents, including dissolved gases, major ions, nutrients, trace elements, pesticides, volatile organic compounds, radionuclides, and indicator bacteria. The Chemung River Basin study area covers 1,744 square miles in south-central New York and encompasses the part of the Chemung River Basin that lies within New York. Two of the wells sampled in the Chemung River Basin are completed in sand and gravel, and 6 are completed in bedrock. Groundwater in the Chemung River Basin was generally of good quality, although properties and concentrations of some constituents—sodium, arsenic, aluminum, iron, manganese, radon-222, total coliform bacteria, and Escherichia coli bacteria—equaled or exceeded primary, secondary, or proposed drinking-water standards. The constituent most frequently detected in concentrations exceeding drinking-water standards (six of eight samples) was radon-222. The Eastern Lake Ontario Basin study area covers 3,225 square miles in north-central New York. The Eastern Lake Ontario Basin (between the Oswego River Basin and the St. Lawrence River Basin) includes the Mid-Northern Lake Ontario Basin, the Black River Basin, and the Chaumont River-Perch River Basin. Five of the wells sampled in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin are completed in sand and gravel, and 10 are completed in bedrock. Groundwater in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin was generally of good quality, although properties and concentrations of some constituents—color, pH, sodium, dissolved solids, fluoride, iron, manganese, uranium, gross-α radioactivity, radon-222, total coliform bacteria, and fecal coliform bacteria—equaled or exceeded primary, secondary, or proposed drinking-water standards. The constituent most frequently detected in concentrations exceeding drinking-water standards (10 of 15 samples) was radon-222. The Lower Hudson River Basin study area covers 5,607 square miles and encompasses the part of the Lower Hudson River Basin that lies within New York plus the parts of the Housatonic, Hackensack, Bronx, and Saugatuck River Basins that are in New York. Twelve of the wells sampled in the Lower Hudson River Basin are completed in sand-and-gravel deposits, and 13 are completed in bedrock. Groundwater in the Lower Hudson River Basin was generally of good quality, although properties and concentrations of some constituents—pH, sodium, chloride, dissolved solids, arsenic, aluminum, iron, manganese, radon-222, total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli bacteria, and heterotrophic plate count—equaled or exceeded primary, secondary, or proposed drinking-water standards. The constituent most frequently detected in concentrations exceeding drinking-water standards (20 of 25 samples) was radon-222.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".