Incorporating geologic information into hydraulic tomography: A general framework based on geostatistical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydraulic tomography (HT) has become a mature aquifer test technology over the last two decades. It collects nonredundant information of aquifer heterogeneity by sequentially stressing the aquifer at different wells and collecting aquifer responses at other wells during each stress. The collected information is then interpreted by inverse models. Among these models, the geostatistical approaches, built upon the Bayesian framework, first conceptualize hydraulic properties to be estimated as random fields, which are characterized by means and covariance functions. They then use the spatial statistics as prior information with the aquifer response data to estimate the spatial distribution of the hydraulic properties at a site. Since the spatial statistics describe the generic spatial structures of the geologic media at the site rather than site‐specific ones (e.g., known spatial distributions of facies, faults, or paleochannels), the estimates are often not optimal. To improve the estimates, we introduce a general statistical framework, which allows the inclusion of site‐specific spatial patterns of geologic features. Subsequently, we test this approach with synthetic numerical experiments. Results show that this approach, using conditional mean and covariance that reflect site‐specific large‐scale geologic features, indeed improves the HT estimates. Afterward, this approach is applied to HT surveys at a kilometer‐scale‐fractured granite field site with a distinct fault zone. We find that by including fault information from outcrops and boreholes for HT analysis, the estimated hydraulic properties are improved. The improved estimates subsequently lead to better prediction of flow during a different pumping test at the site.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".