Using earth‐tide induced water pressure changes to measure in situ permeability: A comparison with long‐term pumping tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Good constraints on hydrogeological properties are an important first step in any quantitative model of groundwater flow. Field estimation of permeability is difficult as it varies over orders of magnitude in natural systems and is scale‐dependent. Here we directly compare permeabilities inferred from tidal responses with conventional large‐scale, long‐term pumping tests at the same site. Tidally induced water pressure changes recorded in wells are used to infer permeability at ten locations in a densely fractured sandstone unit. Each location is either an open‐hole well or a port in a multilevel monitoring well. Tidal response is compared at each location to the results of two conventional, long‐term and large scale pumping tests performed at the same site. We obtained consistent values between the methods for a range of site‐specific permeabilities varying from ∼10 −15 m 2 to 10 −13 m 2 for both open wells with large open intervals and multilevel monitoring well. We conclude that the tidal analysis is able to capture passive and accurate estimates of permeability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".