A Genetic Programming–Based Model for Colloid Retention in Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding the behavior of colloids in groundwater is critical as some are pathogenic while others may facilitate or inhibit the transport of dissolved contaminants. Colloid behavior in saturated fractured aquifers is governed by the physical and chemical properties of the groundwater‐particle‐fracture system. The interaction between these properties is nonlinear, and there is a need for a mathematical model describing the relationship between them to advance the mechanistic understanding of colloid transport in fractures and facilitate modeling in fractured environments. This paper coupled genetic programming and linear regression within a multigene genetic programming framework to develop a robust mathematical model describing the relationship between colloid retention in fractures and the physical and chemical parameters that describe the system. The data employed for model development and validation were collected from a series of 75 laboratory‐scale colloid tracer experiments conducted under a range of conditions in three laboratory‐induced discrete dolomite fractures and their epoxy replicas. The model sufficiently reproduced the observed data with coefficients of determination ( R 2 ) of 0.92 and 0.80 for model development and validation, respectively. A cross‐validation demonstrated the model generality to 86% of the observed data. A variance‐based global sensitivity analysis confirmed that attachment is the primary retention mechanism in the systems employed in this work. The model developed in this study provides a tool describing colloid retention in factures, which furthers the understanding of groundwater‐particle‐fracture system conditions contributing to the retention of colloids and can aid in the design of groundwater remediation strategies and development of groundwater management plans.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".