Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groundwater is an important component of the hydrological cycle of southern Ontario, significant to water supply and discharge to surface water. To improve overall understanding of key hydrological mechanisms, a proof-of-concept framework is presented that consists of seven typical terrains or hydrogeological settings. Geologic and topographic controls influence each setting as recorded by climate, streamflow, and groundwater level data, which trace how water moves through various parts of the southern Ontario landscape. This hydrogeological framework considers the geology of surface sediment and bedrock, permeability and porosity (inferred), physiography, and topographic gradients to define seven distinctive hydrogeological terrains. The data and watershed selection process allow for concentration on patterns of hydrologic response across the landscape, with less focus on hydrologic accounting of the terrain. The analysis identifies events in climate, stream, and well-monitoring data indicative of influxes and temporal patterns of hydrological and hydrogeological response to local geology and topography, thus differentiating styles of groundwater movement in sediment/bedrock landscapes of the Paleozoic basin and Shield margin. A case study is provided for each setting: five in sediment (clay, sand, gravel, till upland, and thick till); and two in bedrock (crystalline and carbonate). The selected hydrogeological terrains characterize ∼90% of the landscape based on a simplified geological map of southern Ontario. The main hydrogeological characteristics and behaviour of these terrains are proposed as a set of conceptual models representative of near-surface groundwater regimes. Such models can inform water and land resource management as future climates change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".