Flowing wells: history and role as a root of groundwater hydrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The spewing of groundwater in flowing wells is a phenomenon of interest to the public, but little attention has been paid to the role of flowing wells on the science of groundwater. This study reviews that answering to problems related to flowing wells since the early 19th century led to the birth of many fundamental concepts and principles of groundwater hydrology. The concepts stemmed from flowing wells in confined aquifers include permeability and compressibility, while the principles include Darcy's law, role of aquitards on flowing well conditions and the piston flow pattern, steady-state well hydraulics in confined aquifers, and transient well hydraulics towards constant-head wells in confined or leaky aquifers, all of which are applicable even if flowing well conditions have disappeared. Due to the widespread occurrence of aquitards, there is a long-lasting misconception that flowing wells must be geologically-controlled. The occurrence of flowing wells in topographic lows of unconfined aquifers was anticipated in 1940 and later verified in the 1960s, accompanying with the birth of the theory of topographically-driven groundwater flow, which has been considered as a paradigm shift in groundwater hydrology. Based on studies following this new paradigm, several preconditions of flowing wells given in the 19th century have been found to be not necessary at all. This historical perspective of the causes of flowing well conditions and the role of flowing wells on the science of groundwater could lead to a deeper understanding of the evolution of groundwater hydrology.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".