Groundwater storage change detection using micro-gravimetric technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, new perspectives and developments in applying a ground-based micro-gravimetric method to detect groundwater storage change in Waterloo Moraine are investigated. Four epochs of gravity survey were conducted using absolute gravimeter (FG5), two relative gravity meters (CG5) and two geodetic global positioning systems (GPS) in the Waterloo Moraine in May and August of 2010 and 2011, respectively. Data were processed using the parametric least-squares method and integrated with geological and hydrological studies. The gravity differences between May and August for 2010 and 2011 epochs were inverted to provide the estimated total water storage changes. Changes in soil water content obtained from land surface models of Ecological Assimilation of Land and Climate Observations (EALCO) and the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) program were employed to estimate the groundwater storage change. The ratios between the estimated groundwater storage changes and measured water table changes (specific yields) were determined at a local monitoring well located in the survey area. The results showed that the estimates of specific yields between May and August of 2010 and 2011 were consistent at a significant confidence level and are also within the range of the specific yield from geological and hydrological studies. Therefore, the micro-gravimetric (absolute and relative gravity meters) technology has demonstrated the great potential in detecting groundwater storage change and specific yield for local scale aquifers such as Waterloo Moraine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".