On the use of geophysical methods to characterize heterogeneities of quaternary alluvial deposits. Application to stormwater infiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deux méthodes géophysiques, le radar géologique et la tomographie électrique, ont été testées sur un bassin d'infiltration construit sur un dépôt fluvioglaciaire.Les réponses géophysiques ont été calibrées sur la paroi d'une tranchée.Une étude sédimentologique couplée à une investigation géophysique en arrière de la paroi a mis en évidence l'architecture en trois dimensions du dépôt.Une typologie de faciès géophysiques reliés aux caractéristiques sédimentaires a ainsi été établie.Un modèle simple d'évaluation des conductivités hydrauliques saturées a été utilisé afin de quantifier les propriétés hydrodynamiques des lithofaciès fluvioglaciaires.Un modèle hy-drostratigraphique réaliste a ainsi été défini.Cette étude montre que l'hétérogénéité sédimentaire à l'échelle du lithofaciès engendre une forte hétérogénéité hydraulique, pouvant être à l'origine d'écoulements préférentiels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".