MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095942099 · doi:10.1080/15275922.2020.1836075

Groundwater forensics approach for differentiating local and regional springs in arid Eastern California, USA

2020· article· en· W3095942099 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Forensics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNature Conservancy of Canada
KeywordsGroundwaterAquiferNational parkAridHydrology (agriculture)Spring (device)Groundwater rechargeEnvironmental scienceGroundwater flowWater resource managementGeologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While water sources that sustain many of the springs in the Mojave Desert have been poorly understood, desert wildlife and ecosystems can be highly dependent on such resources. With ever expanding use of desert groundwater, the effect of groundwater extraction on groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts is an ongoing concern. Springs that are more susceptible to impacts from groundwater withdrawals are typically those in hydraulic connection with surrounding basin-fill aquifer systems. Since spatial and/or temporal data gaps prevent a detailed model of the groundwater system, this evaluation of groundwater forensic approaches identifies a range of characteristics and parameters that demonstrate key indicators of spring-aquifer connectivity using data collected during a California Mojave Desert-wide spring survey conducted during 2015–2016, and subsequent monitoring and sampling events in both the California Mojave and Sonoran Deserts. In total, monitoring and sampling took place at nearly 400 springs primarily in lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and scattered private lands where accessible. Springs in National Park Service units such as Joshua Tree National Park, Mojave National Preserve and Death Valley National Park and in military bases were not included in the investigation scope. The multiple lines of evidence described regarding spring-aquifer connectivity include field parameters for water, such as temperature, pH, and conductivity, as well as geochemical characteristics of water, such as stable isotope and radiocarbon analyses. While other information about the setting, such as spring-site geology, are important in evaluating flow-path characteristics, simple field reconnaissance of these springs may be inconclusive as to provenance, and they are ultimately of lesser importance than the actual water characteristics in identifying spring provenance and potential hydraulic linkage to basin-fill aquifer systems that are, or may in the future, be utilized for regional groundwater development.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.157 · 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