MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379768885 · doi:10.1111/gwat.13332

Estimation of Aquifer Transmissivity From Analysis of Long‐Term Monitoring With the Thiem Solution

2023· article· en· W4379768885 on OpenAlexaff
Joel C. Henry, Christopher J. Neville, Alyssa Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferTerm (time)Constant (computer programming)Specific storageSoil scienceAquifer testAquifer propertiesRADIUSEnvironmental scienceGeologyGroundwaterGeotechnical engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Computer scienceGroundwater recharge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of the Thiem equation to support the interpretation of comprehensive long-term monitoring datasets, made possible through modern datalogging technology, is presented as an alternative to constant-rate aquifer testing to obtain representative transmissivity estimates in settings where controlled hydraulic testing may be impractical. Water levels logged at regular intervals can be readily converted to average water levels over time periods corresponding to periods of known pumping rates. By regressing average water levels during multiple time periods of known but variable withdrawal rates, steady-state conditions can be approximated and Thiem's solution applied to estimate transmissivity, without performance of a constant-rate aquifer test. Although the application is limited to settings where changes in aquifer storage are negligible, by regressing long data sets to parse interferences the method may characterize aquifer conditions over a much wider radius than short-term, non-equilibrium tests. As with all aquifer testing, informed interpretation is critical to identifying and resolving aquifer heterogeneities and interferences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGround WaterSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207