Complexity of hydrogeologic regime around an ancient low‐angle thrust fault revealed by multidisciplinary field study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Co‐located and integrated observation of the surface and subsurface is necessary to characterize fault zone hydrogeology. The spectacular cliff‐face exposure of the Champlain Thrust fault at Lone Rock Point, Vermont, and a nearby well‐field site provides the opportunity for co‐located structural and hydrogeologic field observations. We mapped the prominent structural features of the Champlain Thrust fault and discrete groundwater seeps in outcrop, and also drilled through the fault near the outcrop and determined aquifer parameters from aquifer pumping tests. In outcrop, the fault core thickness varies on the meter scale, splays out into multiple strands, and is offset by a minor normal fault. Groundwater seeps are prevalent in the heavily fractured footwall, but limited in the fault core and hanging wall, suggesting that at the cliff face the water table is generally near the fault core and groundwater flow in the hanging wall is limited. Enrichment of more soluble minerals in cemented fault rock associated with older strands of the fault system may play an important role in localizing karst features in the hanging wall. At the well‐field site, the Champlain Thrust fault is offset significantly by a high‐angle normal fault, the water table is near the surface, and aquifer pumping tests reveal a complex hydrogeologic system, with karst and steep fractures as strong hydraulic conduits in the hanging wall and fault core. The most salient features of the fault zone hydrogeology in the surface and subsurface data are different, but can be integrated into a preliminary conceptual model. Together, the surface and subsurface methods underscore and emphasize the complexity and heterogeneity of the hydrogeology of this low‐angle sedimentary fault.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".