MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200576454 · doi:10.1007/s10040-021-02429-6

Vadose zone modeling to identify controls on groundwater recharge in an unconfined granular aquifer in a cold and humid environment with different meteorological data sources

2021· article· en· W4200576454 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sabrina Bruneau, Florent Barbecot, Marie Larocque, Viorel Horoi, Yves Coquet, Sophie Guillon

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrogeology Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsGroundwater rechargeVadose zoneEvapotranspirationAquiferHydrology (agriculture)HydrogeologyGroundwaterEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationSnowmeltWater balanceSoil waterWater contentSoil scienceGeologySnowGeomorphologyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Groundwater recharge (GR) is a complex process that is difficult to quantify. Increasing attention has been given to unsaturated zone modeling to estimate GR and better understand the processes controlling it. Continuous soil-moisture time series have been shown to provide valuable information in this regard. The objectives of this study were to (i) analyze the processes and factors controlling GR in an unconfined granular aquifer in a cold and humid environment and (ii) assess the uncertainties associated with the use of data from different sources. Soil moisture data monitored over three years at three experimental sites in southern Quebec (Canada) were used to calibrate the HYDRUS-1D model and to estimate ranges of possible GR in a region where groundwater is increasingly used as a source of fresh water. The simulations identified and quantified important factors responsible for the near-surface water balance that leads to GR. The resulting GR estimates from 2016 to 2018 showed marked differences between the three sites, with values ranging from 347 to 735 mm/y. Mean GR for the three sites was 517 mm/y for 2016–2018 and 455 mm/y for the previous 12-year period. GR was shown to depend on monthly variations in precipitation and on soil textural parameters in the root zone, both controlling soil-water retention and evapotranspiration. Monthly recharge patterns showed distinct preferential GR periods during the spring snowmelt (38–45% of precipitation) and in the fall (29% of precipitation). The use of different meteorological datasets was shown to influence the GR estimates.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrogeology JournalSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207