MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Spatiotemporal groundwater modeling for hazard analyses in the San Francisco Bay region

2023· preprint· en· W4378838446 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Greenfield, Timothy Estep, Christopher Hitchcock, Jennifer M. Wilson, Ben Leshchinsky, Joseph Wartman, Adam Wade, Albert Kottke, Michael Boone

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsGreenfield Research (Canada)
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsGroundwaterInterpolation (computer graphics)LandslideSpatial variabilityTerrainHazardGeologyHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceBayPhysical geographyGeomorphologyCartographyStatisticsGeographyGeotechnical engineeringOceanographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many hazards, including precipitation-induced landslides and coseismic liquefaction, are strongly influenced by the variability of groundwater levels. Simplified or coarse-resolution groundwater models are available for regional-scale studies of infrastructure networks; however, these models often do not consider spatial and temporal variations observed within wells and may not provide sufficient local resolution for critical hazard studies. We extend a conventional, physics-based groundwater model to include spatial and temporal variability based on Gaussian process (GP) interpolation to better understand the local and temporal variation of groundwater between well observations. In this probabilistic model, the physics-based groundwater elevation model serves as an ergodic function and the GP interpolation serves as a model of the well observation residuals. We demonstrate the applicability and accuracy of the model by developing phreatic groundwater estimates for an approximately 10,000 km2 area surrounding San Francisco Bay, California, USA. The resulting model accurately estimates the seasonally variable groundwater depth in a blind holdout dataset within 1.11 m with 90% confidence. The model is well constrained with a standard deviation of approximately 1.1 m near wells, but the uncertainty increases dramatically in mountainous terrain where well observations are limited. The model results also indicate that the average seasonal variability is typically modest relative to non-seasonal events, but nonetheless could have significant impacts on hazard evaluations such as earthquake-induced liquefaction or shallow slope instability.

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)0.001
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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→