Assessment of the paleoclimatic impact on the geothermal field in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is of great importance to have an understanding of the underground temperature distribution in order to <br>evaluate the geothermal potential and to ensure the long-term safety of heat-producing waste in repositories. <br>As there are few temperature observations in the subsurface, numerical modelling is utilized to make predictions <br>of the subsurface temperature distribution for exploration and risk assessment. In contrast to statistical models, <br>numerical physical approaches can account for local heterogeneities in thermal properties, given well informed <br>structural and parametrical models of the subsurface. <br>Previous research, conducted primarily in Northern Europe and Canada, has demonstrated that the Pleistocene <br>glaciations have an additive effect, resulting in a cooling of several degrees Celsius at depths of up to two <br>kilometers. Recent studies indicate that the Last Glacial Period and the recent warming have the greatest <br>paleoclimatic impact on the subsurface temperatures in Germany. However, a systematic study in sedimentary <br>regions in Germany has only been conducted on a regional scale and with coarse spatial resolution. <br>Consequently, transient numerical simulations are required to account for the temporal and spatial changes in <br>ground surface temperatures (GST). However, only a limited number of GST histories since the last glacial <br>maximum are available, either from rare transient climate simulations or from ground surface temperature <br>reconstructions using borehole climatology. Analyzing continuous, high-precision temperature profiles and <br>geophysical well logs to derive the thermophysical subsurface characterization, we identify boreholes suitable <br>for investigating the paleoclimatic effects of the Pleistocene and Holocene on Germany’s subsurface <br>temperature distribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".