MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758252753 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2016-0112

Using a multiple variogram approach to improve the accuracy of subsurface geological models

2017· article· en· W2758252753 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kelsey MacCormack, Emmanuelle Arnaud, Beth L. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyHydrogeologyBedrockContext (archaeology)GroundwaterVariogramGeologic mapEarth scienceKrigingGeomorphologyPaleontologyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subsurface geological models are often used to visualize and analyze the nature, geometry, and variability of geologic and hydrogeologic units in the context of groundwater resource studies. The development of three-dimensional (3D) subsurface geological models covering increasingly larger model domains has steadily increased in recent years, in step with the rapid development of computing technology and software, and the increasing need to understand and manage groundwater resources at the regional scale. The models are then used by decision makers to guide activities and policies related to source water protection, well field development, and industrial or agricultural water use. It is important to ensure that the modelling techniques and procedures are able to accurately delineate and characterize the heterogeneity of the various geological environments included within the regional model domain. The purpose of this study is to examine if 3D stratigraphic models covering complex Quaternary deposits can be improved by splitting the regional model into multiple submodels based on the degree of variability observed between surrounding data points and informed by expert geological knowledge of the geological–depositional framework. This is demonstrated using subsurface data from the Paris Moraine area near Guelph in southern Ontario. The variogram models produced for each submodel region were able to better characterize the data variability, resulting in a more geologically realistic interpolation of the entire model domain as demonstrated by the comparison of the model output with preexisting maps of surficial geology and bedrock topography as well as depositional models for these complex glacial environments. Importantly, comparison between model outputs reveals significant differences in the resulting subsurface stratigraphy, complexity, and variability, which would in turn impact groundwater flow model predictions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207