MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110715605 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2015784117

Base of fresh water, groundwater salinity, and well distribution across California

2020· article· en· W3110715605 on OpenAlexafffund
Mary Kang, Debra Perrone, Ziming Wang, Scott Jasechko, Melissa M. Rohde

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGroundwaterSalinityEnvironmental scienceDistribution (mathematics)Base (topology)Hydrology (agriculture)BiologyEcologyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 399,454) across California. We find that 19 to 56% of the groundwater TDS measurements made at depths deeper than defined bases of fresh water pump fresh groundwater (TDS < 2,000 mg/L). Because fresh groundwater is found at depths deeper than the base of fresh water, current policies informed by base of fresh water assessments may not be managing and protecting large volumes of deep fresh groundwater. Furthermore, we find that nearly 4% of existing groundwater wells penetrate defined bases of fresh water, and nearly 16% of wells overlie it by no more than 100 m, evidencing widespread encroachment on the base of fresh water by groundwater users. Consequently, our analysis suggests that groundwater sustainability in California may be poorly safeguarded in some places and that the base-of-fresh-water concept needs to be reconsidered as a means to define and manage groundwater.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207