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

Guidelines for cold‐regions groundwater numerical modeling

2020· article· en· W3040951804 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierrick Lamontagne‐Hallé, Jeffrey M. McKenzie, Barret L. Kurylyk, John Molson, Laura Lyon

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.036

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations74
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews WaterSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207