Field Permeability Tests with Inward and Outward Flow in Confined Aquifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field permeability tests gave the local hydraulic conductivities (K) at three different sites. Constant head (CH) and variable head (VH) tests were performed using 33 monitoring wells (MWs) installed in confined aquifers. Each test method was conducted with either an inward flow from aquifer to pipe or outward flow from pipe to aquifer, which makes a total of four types of tests: discharge and injection tests (CH) and rising and falling head tests (VH). The MWs were developed soon after their installation to remove the fine particles that were close to the screen areas. This article first explains various test results at different sites. For MWs in perfect condition, two opposite flows should yield equivalent K values. However, the tests with inward flow and outward flow gave different K values, which is due to some clogging of the screen or internal erosion of the filter pack. In addition, the K (CH tests), which are frequently lower than the K (VH tests), are more accurate because the CH test lasts longer and has a larger influence radius. The article also provides recommendations for estimating reliable K values for a confined aquifer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".