From datasets to decisions – a repeatable workflow for groundwater decision support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental water management often benefits from a risk-based approach where information on the area of interest is characterized, assembled, and incorporated into a decision model considering uncertainty. This includes prior information from literature, field measurements, professional interpretation, and data assimilation resulting in a decision tool with a posterior uncertainty assessment accounting for prior understanding and what is learned through model development and data assimilation. Model construction and data assimilation are time consuming and prone to errors, which motivates a repeatable workflow where revisions resulting from new interpretations or discovery of errors can be addressed and the analyses repeated efficiently and rigorously. In this work, motivated by the real-world application of delineating risk-based (probabilistic) sources of water to abstraction wells in a humid temperate climate, a scripted workflow was generated for groundwater model construction, data assimilation, particle-tracking, and post-processing. The workflow leverages existing datasets describing hydrogeology, hydrography, water use, recharge, and lateral boundaries to build the model. The workflow performs ensemble-based history matching and uses a posterior Monte Carlo approach to provide probabilistic capture zones describing areas that contribute recharge to wells in a risk-based framework. The water managers can then select areas of varying levels of protection based on their tolerance for risk of potential wrongness of the underlying models. All the tools in this workflow are open-source and free, which facilitates testing of this repeatable and transparent approach to other environmental problems. The specific data are available in the United States but the tools can be applied to similar datasets worldwide.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.021 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".