MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066205614

Groundwater and the Forres (River Findhorn & Pilmuir) Flood Alleviation Scheme, Morayshire

2008· other· en· W7066205614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Innovation in Industries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythFlooding (psychology)Hydrology (agriculture)GroundwaterDrainageChannel (broadcasting)HydrogeologyFlood mitigationFloodplainGroundwater flow
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Forres area was subjected to one of the most catastrophic floods in UK history when the River Findhorn flooded in 1829. In recent times, Forres has also flooded (notably in 1997 and 2001) but to a much lesser extent. To help protect the town of Forres a flood alleviation scheme against flooding from the River Findhorn is proposed for west Forres and the Pilmuir area. This scheme involves a series of embankments and river channel engineering to stop the eastward flow of water through Forres, and an open drainage channel to drain storm water in the Pilmuir sub catchment. A critical issue in the operation and effectiveness of the flood alleviation scheme is the role of groundwater.
\n
\nGroundwater investigations and modelling in the Pilmuir area of Forres were first undertaken by BGS from Jan – May 2007 (reported in MacDonald et al. 2007). The investigations
\nshowed that the superficial deposits are highly permeable, contain much groundwater, and could therefore impact the success of the flood alleviation measures. Therefore, a second phase of work was proposed which examined the groundwater conditions around the area of the proposed embankments and modelled the effect of various flooding scenarios on general groundwater conditions and the flows in the drains/channels. BGS were commissioned to carry out this work during a study from November 07 to March 08. The following work was undertaken.
\n
\n1. The hydrogeology of the area to be inundated was characterised by undertaking 13 short pumping tests in newly drilled piezometers, supervising 7 others and analysing and interpreting results. Groundwater-level data from installed divers were also interpreted. 
\n2. Groundwater samples for chemistry analysis and residence time indicators were also taken at 13 sites and the samples analysed and interpreted. 
\n3. Topsoil permeability was measured in 33 locations by the Macaulay Institute using a Guelph Permeameter.
\n4. Using the new data, the groundwater flow model initially developed in Phase 1 was modified and extended to help test the effect on general groundwater levels and drain/channel flows of storing floodwater on the floodplain behind the bund and explore the influence of a cut-off wall in the vicinity of the garden centre.
\n5. Using existing rainfall data, hydrogeological understanding and the groundwater model, a worst case groundwater flooding scenario was estimated.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.131 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council)Same topicDigital Innovation in IndustriesFrench-language works237,207