MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251987404 · doi:10.5194/hess-2018-313

Long-term groundwater recharge rates across India by in situ measurements

2018· preprint· en· W4251987404 on OpenAlexaff
Soumendra N. Bhanja, Abhijit Mukherjee, Rangarajan Ramaswamy, Bridget R. Scanlon, Pragnaditya Malakar, Shubha Verma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersUniversity of Texas at AustinU.S. Department of State
KeywordsGroundwater rechargeGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Groundwater dischargeDepression-focused rechargeEnvironmental scienceStructural basinDrainage basinGeologyGroundwater flowAquiferGeographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Groundwater recharge sustains groundwater discharge, including natural discharge through springs and base flow to surface water as well as anthropogenic discharge through pumping wells. Here, for the first time, we compute long-term (1996–2015) groundwater recharge rates using data retrieved from several groundwater level monitoring locations across India (3.3 million km2 area), the most groundwater-stressed region globally. Spatial variations in groundwater recharge rates (basin-wide mean: 17 to 960 mm/yr) were estimated in the 22 major river basins across India. The extensive plains of the Indus–Ganges–Brahmaputra (IGB) river basins are subjected to prevalence of comparatively higher recharge. This is mainly attributed to occurrence of coarse sediments, higher rainfall, and intensive irrigation-linked groundwater abstraction inducing recharge by increasing available groundwater storage and return flows. Lower recharge rates (

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater and Watershed AnalysisFrench-language works237,207