MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745838298 · doi:10.1071/aj15052

Evaluating potential coal seam gas impacts to the Condamine Alluvium: an example of successful community involvement

2016· article· en· W2745838298 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Gossmann, Stephen Denner, St John Herbert, Randall Cox, Josh Moncrieff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe APPEA Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsKlohn Crippen Berger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlluviumAquiferGeologyGroundwaterAlluvial plainDrillingCoal miningHydrogeologyCoalMining engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringArchaeologyEngineeringGeomorphologyGeographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The groundwater resources of the Condamine River Alluvial Aquifer (Condamine Alluvium) in Queensland have been developed in the past 60 years for irrigation, stock, domestic and other uses. Extraction of more than 55,000 mL/yr from this aquifer is critical to supporting the local irrigation industry. Existing and proposed coal seam gas development in the Surat Basin extends to underneath the western edge of the CA footprint and involves depressurisation of coals that form up to 10% of the Walloon Coal Measures (WCM) at some depth below the alluvium. Reduced groundwater availability from the already-stressed Condamine Alluvium is thus an oft-quoted concern of landholders when further development of the CSG industry is considered. An extensive study, led by the Queensland Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment (OGIA) and supported by Arrow Energy, was carried out to provide quantitative assessments of vertical hydraulic conductivity between the alluvium, coal measures and intervening formations. This extended abstract focuses on one element of the aforementioned study led by Arrow Energy, specifically, aquifer testing undertaken at two representative sites overlying the Condamine Alluvium. This included drilling and collection of core; geophysical, geomechanical and geochemical testing; test pumping and monitoring; and, modelling. An important element of this project, aside from sharing of data and results—was the involvement of local landholders in development of the investigations, and attendance at field days during drilling and presentation of results. Key findings included estimated ranges of vertical hydraulic conductivity derived from parameter estimation modelling that were lower than previously suggested.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe APPEA JournalSame topicCoal Properties and UtilizationFrench-language works237,207