Tunnel-channel complexes in the Zephyr area, Ontario: potential high-yield aquifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In south-central Ontario, tunnel channels are primary targets for groundwater exploration due to their potential to contain confined, water-bearing, coarse-grained sediment fills. Despite extensive hydrogeologic and geologic exploration within these features, a comprehensive depositional model that illustrates the spatial distribution of coarse- and fine- grained sediment in tunnel-channel complexes is absent. Work in the Zephr area, north of ORM, presents new subsurface data to improve understanding of this geologic setting and to add to geologic models of these channel systems. Findings result from combined geology, sedimentology, geophysics (seismic profiling) and sediment drilling (mud rotary and continuous core) to better our understanding the shallow channel setting north of ORM, including: 1) spatial distribution of coarse- and fine-grained sediments in tunnel-channels; 2) the architecture of tunnel-channel sequences in confluence zones. Preferred aquifer targets aquifer units in the Zephyr area are identified in areas of channel confluence and channel bends. Channel aquifers are confined by 3.9 to 28.5 m thick deposits of rhythmically bedded silt and clay.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".