MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312608581 · doi:10.4095/331098

A three-dimensional bedrock hydrostratigraphic model of southern Ontario

2022· report· en· W4312608581 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terry R. Carter, C Logan, J K Clark, H A J Russell, E H Priebe, S Sun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicKarst Systems and Hydrogeology
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferGeologyHydrogeologyAquifer testGroundwaterGroundwater modelGroundwater flowGeochemistryGroundwater rechargeGeomorphologyHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hydrostratigraphic framework has been developed for southern Ontario consisting of 15 hydrostratigraphic units and 3 regional hydrochemical regimes. Using this framework, the 54 layer 3-D lithostratigraphic model has been converted into a 15 layer 3-D hydrostratigraphic model. Layers are expressed as either aquifer or aquitard based principally on hydrogeologic characteristics, in particular the permeability and the occurrence/absence of groundwater when intersected by a water well or petroleum well. Hydrostratigraphic aquifer units are sub-divided into up to three distinct hydrochemical regimes: brines (deep), brackish-saline sulphur water (intermediate), and fresh (shallow). The hydrostratigraphic unit assignment provides a standard nomenclature and definition for regional flow modelling of potable water and deeper fluids. Included in the model are: 1) 3-D hydrostratigraphic units, 2) 3-D hydrochemical fluid zones within aquifers, 3) 3-D representations of oil and natural gas reservoirs which form an integral part of the intermediate to deep groundwater regimes, 4) 3-D fluid level surfaces for deep Cambrian brines, for brines and fresh to sulphurous groundwater in the Guelph Aquifer, and the fresh to sulphurous groundwater of the Bass Islands Aquifer and Lucas-Dundee Aquifer, 5) inferred shallow karst, 6) base of fresh water, 7) Lockport Group TDS, and 8) the 3-D lithostratigraphy. The 3-D hydrostratigraphic model is derived from the lithostratigraphic layers of the published 3-D geological model. It is constructed using Leapfrog Works at 400 m grid scale and is distributed in a proprietary format with free viewer software as well as industry standard formats.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKarst Systems and HydrogeologyFrench-language works237,207