MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040951804 · doi:10.1002/wat2.1467

Guidelines for cold‐regions groundwater numerical modeling

2020· article· en· W3040951804 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern StudiesDalhousie UniversityMcGill University
FundersUniversité de MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsHydrogeologyGroundwater rechargeGroundwaterPermafrostGroundwater modelGroundwater flowEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Infiltration (HVAC)GeologySurface waterWater resourcesWater resource managementAquiferGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental engineeringMeteorologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The impacts of ongoing climate warming on cold‐regions hydrogeology and groundwater resources have created a need to develop groundwater models adapted to these environments. Although permafrost is considered relatively impermeable to groundwater flow, permafrost thaw may result in potential increases in surface water infiltration, groundwater recharge, and hydrogeologic connectivity that can impact northern water resources. To account for these feedbacks, groundwater models that include the dynamic effects of freezing and thawing on ground properties and thermal regimes have been recently developed. However, these models are more complex than traditional hydrogeology numerical models due to the inclusion of nonlinear freeze–thaw processes and complex thermal boundary conditions. As such, their use to date has been limited to a small community of modeling experts. This article aims to provide guidelines and tips on cold‐regions groundwater modeling for those with previous modeling experience. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Methods Science of Water > Hydrological Processes

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.132 · 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