Predicting Subsurface Architecture From Surface Channel Networks in the Bengal Delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Groundwater is the primary source of water in the Bengal Delta but contamination threatens this vital resource. In deltaic environments, heterogeneous sedimentary architecture controls groundwater flow; therefore, characterizing subsurface structure is a critical step in predicting groundwater contamination. Here, we show that surface information can improve the characterization of the nature and geometry of subsurface features, thus improving the predictions of groundwater flow. We selected three locations in the Bengal Delta with distinct surface river network characteristics—the lower delta with straighter tidal channels, the mid‐delta with meandering and braided channels, and the inactive delta with transitional sinuous channels. We used surface information, including channel widths, depths, and sinuosity, to create models of the subsurface with object‐based geostatistical simulations. We collected an extensive set of lithologic data and filled in gaps with newly drilled boreholes. Our results show that densely distributed lithologic data from active lower and mid‐delta are consistent with the object‐based models generated from surface information. In the inactive delta, metrics from object‐based models derived from surface geometries are not consistent with subsurface data. We further simulated groundwater flow and solute transport through the object‐based models and compared these with simulated flow through lithologic models based only on variograms. Substantial differences in flow and transport through the different geologic models show that geometric structure derived from surface information strongly influences groundwater flow and solute transport. Land surface features in active deltas are therefore a valuable source of information for improving the evaluation of groundwater vulnerability to contamination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".