MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891255436 · doi:10.1002/hyp.13279

Avoiding confusion between pressure front pulse displacement and groundwater displacement: <scp>I</scp>llustration with the pumping test in a confined aquifer

2018· article· en· W2891255436 on OpenAlexaff
Romain Chesnaux

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferDisplacement (psychology)GroundwaterGeologyFront (military)Groundwater flowGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two distinct phenomena may be distinguished and defined during a pumping test conducted in a confined aquifer: the pressure front pulse displacement and the groundwater displacement. This Scientific briefing examines and clarifies the difference between the pressure wave displacement and the groundwater displacement, by stating the differences in their respective transit times and velocities. The pressure front pulse displacement is controlled by the diffusivity of the aquifer, whereas groundwater displacement is controlled by the pumping flow rate and the effective porosity of the aquifer. To calculate the transit time and velocity of each type of displacement, several equations are presented and compared. An example is provided to illustrate the differences in velocity between the pressure front pulse displacement and the groundwater displacement.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207