MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922021333 · doi:10.1007/s12665-019-8188-1

Application of geochemical and groundwater data to predict sinkhole formation in a gypsum formation in Manitoba, Canada

2019· article· en· W2922021333 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kayla Moore, Hartmut Holländer, Mohamed El Basri, M. Roemer

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Earth Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicKarst Systems and Hydrogeology
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)University of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSinkholeKarstGeologyDitchGroundwater flowGypsumGroundwaterEvaporiteHydrology (agriculture)HydrogeologyEquipotentialGeomorphologyAquiferGeotechnical engineeringStructural basinGeographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical modelling approaches were used to investigate coupled groundwater flow and reactive transport processes in gypsum karst sub-terrain. A regional equipotential map and steady-state flow model were created using scarce data to gain insights into flow patterns and identify potential areas at risk for cavity and sinkhole development in a shallow gypsum formation. Coupled flow and reactive transport modelling was used to simulate the dissolution of gypsum between a sinkhole in a man-made drainage ditch and a quarry, where freshwater enters the drainage ditch and flows toward the quarry. Field data from a tracer test were used to characterize flow in the study area. The resulting regional equipotential map was valuable in identifying potential areas of sinkhole development; sinkholes occurred in areas underlain by thick gypsum formations with high flow gradients and radial flow. The reactive transport model was valuable in identifying the growth of the cavity and the timeline for the potential risk to road infrastructure. The reactive transport model indicated that cavity growth could be slowed by removing the inflow of freshwater into the drainage ditch. Groundwater equipotential maps, flow models and reactive transport models are valuable tools for the investigation of sub-terrain karst development including cavity development and sinkhole formation in evaporite minerals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Earth SciencesSame topicKarst Systems and HydrogeologyFrench-language works237,207