MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981401276 · doi:10.4095/221893

From geological to groundwater flow models: an example of inter-operability for semi-regular grids

2006· report· en· W2981401276 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Ross, L Aitssi, Richard Martel, Michel Parent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridHydrogeologyComputer scienceOperabilityGroundwater flowASCIIComputational scienceSoftwareVisualizationProperty (philosophy)Mesh generationFinite element methodGroundwaterGeologyData miningEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating geologic information into hydrogeologic numerical models is by no means a straightforward operation. This is especially true for finite element modeling which generally requires that the geological information be integrated into grids that are generally irregular in the horizontal (i, j) direction and regular in the vertical (k) direction. Semi-regular grids of this type are still rarely supported by geological modeling packages and the data structure can vary significantly between softwares. Nevertheless, workable solutions exist for some software packages. Here we present a solution that allows the properties of a gOcad geomodel to be transferred to a semiregular grid built in GMS, a commonly used pre-processor for groundwater flow modeling applications. The transfer is achieved first by building in gOcad a "twin grid" that has the same mesh structure as the original GMS grid. This is done using the research plug-in GridLab developed by the gOcad Research Group. Once the properties of the geomodel are transferred to the twin grid, cell or element number correspondences and property transfer to the original GMS grid is achieved using the database system Access. ASCII file format is used for most data exchange between softwares. The time required to go through the procedure is on the order of minutes, even for large grids, making it a practical solution for the lasting problem of property transfer from geological to hydrogeological models, at least until more convenient and built-in interfaces are developed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.163 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207