Evolving concepts and communication: what do we need to evaluate better regional groundwater flow?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theory of regional groundwater flow is sixty years old in 2023, which has made it possible to evaluate groundwater flow systems and evolution in sedimentary basins. Recently, the approach has been extended to different environments in the Earth's crust. By applying regional groundwater flow theory, we can solve groundwater issues on a larger scale than for single aquifers. Application of the concept contributes to all practical aspects of groundwater topics, including the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals for water.However, the developed terms related to groundwater flow evaluation need to be more strictly defined and clarified for interpreting complex hydrogeological flow systems. The presentation summarizes the results of discussions among RGFC-IAH board members on this topic and tries to provide some necessary frameworks for the future application of the concept.At regional scales, groundwater flow evaluation should include the concept of aquifer systems. The term artesian basin has become obsolete because it implies impermeable layers in natural environments; groundwater basin is preferred instead. Sedimentary basin is a broader term which can contain more than one groundwater basin. For the goals of flow system evaluation, the term groundwater basins can be used, which are characterized by siliciclastic basin fill and basement aquifer systems. The full-groundwater basin is required for 2D and 3D interpretations, because half- (or symmetric-) basin assessment can provide misleading results. Hydraulic continuity is a fundamental principle in groundwater flow evaluation, it can be assumed in groundwater basins across multiple aquifers, aquitards and faults, as long as one has no contradicting evidence. Conceptual groundwater flow models need to be tested with specific field data, numerical simulations and groundwater flow-related manifestations.The presentation aims to initiate a discussion on improving the application of regional groundwater flow theory. The conference presentation is supported by the National Multidisciplinary Laboratory for Climate Change, RRF-2.3.1- 21-2022-00014 project.
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 | 0.044 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.064 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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.
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".