MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2327042424 · doi:10.1061/40792(173)353

Two-Dimensional Modeling of Tidally Influenced Ground Water Level Fluctuations

2005· article· en· W2327042424 on OpenAlexaff
I. M. M. Hemmings, Salem Harris

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMODFLOWGroundwaterGroundwater flowGeologyHydrology (agriculture)Saturation (graph theory)Groundwater modelPiezometerVadose zoneGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceAquiferSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two-dimensional groundwater flow model was developed to evaluate potential groundwater remedial alternatives for a site located on a peninsula along the northwest coast of Washington State. The peninsula is flanked on either side by tidal estuaries. The model was developed using the saturated-unsaturated groundwater flow model MODFLOW-SURFACT99. Tidal fluctuations of up to approximately 4 meters (m) twice daily induce significant groundwater level fluctuations within the peninsula requiring that transient groundwater flow conditions be represented in the model to provide a reasonable assessment of alternative remedial designs. Challenges encountered during model calibration are presented and discussed. In particular, differing results were obtained using the pseudo-soil water retention functions implemented in MODFLOW-SURFACT99 versus the relationships of relative permeability versus water phase saturation and pressure head versus water phase saturation described by van Genuchten. Further, although borehole stratigraphy indicates the absence of a continuous low permeability layer in the shallow portion of the peninsula, the model calibration demonstrated that the numerous discontinuous silt and clay lenses that are observed throughout the deposit impart a confining to semi-confining effect on groundwater flow conditions at depth. Following model calibration, the model was applied to evaluate the performance of various groundwater remedial designs. The simulation results for a potential remedial alternative are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater flow and contamination studies→French-language works237,207→