MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947959507 · doi:10.5066/f7q52nxk

Simulation of Groundwater Flow, and Analysis of Projected Water Use for the Rush Springs Aquifer, Western Oklahoma

2018· dataset· en· W6947959507 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUSGS DOI Tool Production Environment · 2018
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferMODFLOWGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Groundwater flowInflowGroundwater modelSpring (device)Aquifer testOutflow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2018 The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, published a calibrated numerical groundwater- flow model and associated model documentation report that evaluated the effects of potential groundwater withdrawals on groundwater flow and availability in the Rush Springs aquifer in western Oklahoma. The results of groundwater-availability scenarios run on the calibrated numerical groundwater-flow model could be used by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to evaluate the maximum annual yield of groundwater from the Rush Springs aquifer in Oklahoma. A conceptual groundwater-flow model is a simplified description of the major inflow and outflow sources (hydrologic boundaries) of a groundwater-flow system as well as an accounting of the estimated mean flows from those sources (water budget) for a specified period of time. The conceptual model was necessary to provide constraints used in the construction and calibration of a scientifically defensible numerical groundwater-flow model that reasonably represents the groundwater-flow system. A finite-difference numerical groundwater-flow model of the Rush Springs aquifer was constructed by using MODFLOW-2005 with the Newton formulation solver (MODFLOW-NWT). Data inputs for each package were specified in machine-readable text files. The numerical model of the Rush Springs aquifer had 1,362 rows, 1,083 columns, about 554,000 active cells of 500 by 500 ft, and 3 convertible layers. The top layer (layer 1) represented the Permian-age Cloud Chief Formation. The Rush Springs aquifer is composed of Permian-age Whitehorse Group. The second layer (layer 2) represented the undifferentiated Quaternary-age alluvium and terrace deposits, as well as the upper 30 ft of the Whitehorse Group. The bottom layer (layer 3) represented the remainder of the Rush Springs Formation. The model active area was modified from Neel and others (2018). The numerical model was temporally discretized into 444 monthly transient stress periods representing the period 1979-2015. An initial steady-state stress period, in which the groundwater-flow equation had no storage component, represented mean annual inflows to and outflows from the aquifer and produced a solution that was used as the initial condition for subsequent transient stress periods. The numerical model was constructed in units of meters and days. This USGS data release contains all of the input and output files for the simulations described in the associated model documentation report (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185136)

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSGS DOI Tool Production EnvironmentFrench-language works237,207