A Modelling Framework for Groundwater Sustainability in the UpperOrange Catchment of South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainability modelling of the C52 Upper Orange Catchment was done for 52 boreholes.This Modelling framework was developed because in arid and semi-arid areas of South Africa, farmers and communities only have a limited number of water provision points.This has put more pressure and increased the number of wells and boreholes being drilled where they can access groundwater which is needed for multiple purposes especially agriculture and drinking water provision.Excessive pumping can lead to groundwater depletion, where groundwater is extracted from an aquifer at a rate faster than it can be replenished.This will put undue pressure on aquifers and catchments such as the Upper Orange (Modder).The methodology involved a detailed understanding of the parameters and ranking of the physical processes affecting groundwater system of the upper orange river catchment for 51 boreholes such as the climatic factors, aquifer system, rights, and equity.This model assessed whether there is undue pressure on the Upper Orange Catchment.The result and findings have been presented in a sustainability index.The outcome was a sustainability map showing areas depicting the most to least sustainable aquifers in the catchment.The developed sustainability index and maps are useful tools for future groundwater management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".