MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413020467 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134023

An integrated InSAR-numerical approach for accurate groundwater head prediction

2025· article· en· W4413020467 on OpenAlexaff
Behshid Khodaei, Hossein Hashemi, Mazda Kompanizare, Amir Naghibi, Ronny Berndtsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water Security
FundersScripps Institution of Oceanography
KeywordsInterferometric synthetic aperture radarHead (geology)GeologyGroundwaterRemote sensingHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeomorphologySynthetic aperture radar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the decline of groundwater resources in productive aquifers within arid and semi-arid regions has become a growing concern. This depletion leads to lasting changes in aquifer properties due to fine particle rearrangement caused by pore pressure decline. The issue is especially critical in regions lacking reliable field data. Thus, it is crucial to develop methods that are less dependent on in-situ data but still offer reliable tools for monitoring groundwater levels in such regions. This study presents the deformation-driven groundwater head estimation model, primarily developed to estimate storativity by jointly analyzing groundwater head and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR)-derived surface deformation, separating seasonal and long-term components. The model then uses these estimated storage coefficients to simulate and predict groundwater levels without requiring detailed knowledge of aquifer type or properties. It can reconstruct historical head data and predict future levels from deformation alone. Model performance was evaluated across two distinct aquifer systems with diverse hydrogeological properties and deformation behaviors. Four wells in each aquifer ensured spatial representativeness. The model showed strong agreement with observed groundwater head, achieving average R 2 values of 0.70 and 0.94 in the simulation phase, and 0.65 and 0.34 in the prediction phase for the two aquifers, respectively.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrologySame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207