MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981443111 · doi:10.4095/215602

An overview of the architecture, sedimentology and hydrogeology of buried-valley aquifers in Canada

2004· report· en· W2981443111 on OpenAlexaffabout
H A J Russell, M J Hinton, Garth van der Kamp, D R Sharpe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferHydrogeologyGeologyBedrockGroundwaterGroundwater flowGeomorphologyFaciesHydrology (agriculture)SedimentologyGeotechnical engineeringStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Buried valleys occur across Canada yet no systematic study has been completed of the scale, style, and hydrogeological significance of this aquifer type. This paper reviews geological and hydrogeological knowledge of buried-valley aquifers in Canada. Buried valleys are placed in a stratigraphic classification: i) bedrock, ii) bedrock interface, and iii) Quaternary sediment. The distribution, geometry and scale of valleys and the sediment facies of valley fills are briefly discussed. Important hydrogeological characteristics for buried-valley aquifers include aquifer extent, aquifer continuity and several hydraulic characteristics that influence flow and hydraulic response. The wide range of hydrogeologic settings and functions for buried-valley aquifers explains their variability as groundwater resources, thus emphasizing the need for greater monitoring and understanding of buried valleys at several scales. Knowledge gaps are identified and the need for improved integration of geological and hydrogeological studies to improve understanding of Canada's buried-valley aquifers is advocated.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207