Evaluating at Three Scales the Hydraulic Conductivity in an Unconfined and Stratified Alluvial Aquifer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The values of hydraulic conductivity (K) were evaluated at three scales in a stratified alluvial aquifer. The small scale is that of hundreds of soil samples for which K was estimated using predictive methods. A first estimate assumed that each sample was homogeneous. A second estimate proceeded with the modal decomposition for the grain-size distribution curve: this quantified the existing and visually confirmed stratification before predicting K. The medium scale is that of hundreds of variable-head (slug) permeability tests in monitoring wells. The large scale is that of 16 pumping tests in steady-state conditions. The aquifer heterogeneity was quantified with the K values distribution curves for small and medium scales and their modal decompositions. The large data sets provided an excellent opportunity to check the lognormal assumption for the K distributions. Large-scale K values were predicted from the small-scale K distribution with assumed stratification and also from medium-scale K distribution: these predicted values were found to be equal to the mean K value of pumping tests. Therefore, if the grain-size distributions are correctly interpreted and the field permeability tests are correctly performed and interpreted, the distribution curves for the small-scale and medium-scale K values explain the large-scale K values of pumping tests, and there is no need to invoke any scale effect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".