Uncertainty with Varying Subsurface Permeabilities Reduced Using Coupled Random Field and Extended Theory of Porous Media Contaminant Transport Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To maximize the usefulness of groundwater flow models for the protection of aquifers and abstraction wells, it is necessary to identify and decrease the uncertainty associated with the major parameters such as permeability. To do this, there is a need to develop set of estimates representing subsurface heterogeneity or representative soil permeability estimates. Here, we use a coupled Random Field and extended Theory of Porous Media (eTPM) simulation to develop a robust model with a good predictive ability that reduces uncertainty. The coupled model is then validated with a physical sandbox experiment. Uncertainty is reduced by using 500 realisations of the permeability parameter using the eTPM approach. A multi-layer contaminant transport scenario with varying permeabilities, similar to what could be expected with shallow alluvial sediments, is simulated. The results show that the contaminant arrival time could be strongly affected by random field realizations of permeability compared with a modelled homogenous permeability parameter. The breakthrough time for heterogeneous permeabilities is shorter than the homogeneous condition. Using the 75% confidence interval (CI), the average contaminant concentration shows 4.4% variation from the average values of the considered area and 8.9% variation in the case of a 95% confidence interval.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".