Hydrogeology and simulation of groundwater flow in the Central Oklahoma (Garber-Wellington) Aquifer, Oklahoma, 1987 to 2009, and simulation of available water in storage, 2010–2059
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First posted February 10, 2014 Revised October 28, 2019 For additional information, contact: Director, Oklahoma Water Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey202 NW 66th, Bldg 7 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 The Central Oklahoma (Garber-Wellington) aquifer underlies about 3,000 square miles of central Oklahoma. The study area for this investigation was the extent of the Central Oklahoma aquifer. Water from the Central Oklahoma aquifer is used for public, industrial, commercial, agricultural, and domestic supply. With the exception of Oklahoma City, all of the major communities in central Oklahoma rely either solely or partly on groundwater from this aquifer. The Oklahoma City metropolitan area, incorporating parts of Canadian, Cleveland, Grady, Lincoln, Logan, McClain, and Oklahoma Counties, has a population of approximately 1.2 million people. As areas are developed for groundwater supply, increased groundwater withdrawals may result in decreases in long-term aquifer storage. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, investigated the hydrogeology and simulated groundwater flow in the aquifer using a numerical groundwater-flow model. The purpose of this report is to describe an investigation of the Central Oklahoma aquifer that included analyses of the hydrogeology, hydrogeologic framework of the aquifer, and construction of a numerical groundwater-flow model. The groundwater-flow model was used to simulate groundwater levels and for water-budget analysis. A calibrated transient model was used to evaluate changes in groundwater storage associated with increased future water demands.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".