Implementation of an automatic calibration procedure for HYDROTEL based on prior OAT sensitivity and complementary identifiability analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Efficiency of hydrological models mostly depends on the quality of the calibration performed prior to use. In this paper, an automatic calibration framework for the distributed hydrological model HYDROTEL is proposed. The calibration procedure was performed for three watersheds characterized with different hydroclimatological conditions: the Sassandra located in Ivory Coast, Africa, and the Montmorency and Beaurivage watersheds located in Quebec (Canada). Results of one‐a‐time (OAT) sensitivity analysis showed that the order of the most sensitive parameters differs for each watershed. Thus, the sensitivity depends on the hydroclimatic and physiographic characteristics of the watersheds. Co‐linearity indices showed that all model parameters were identifiable, that is, none of the studied parameters could be explained by a combination of the other parameters. Following these findings, an automatic calibration was run. Results indicated there was good agreement between simulated and measured streamflows at the outlet of each watershed; Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) ranging between 0.77 and 0.92 and R2 ranging from 0.87 to 0.97. When comparing NSE and R2 values obtained using a process‐oriented, multiple‐objective, manual calibration strategy, a slight increase in model efficiency was reached with the automatic calibration procedure (4.15% for NSE and 2.95% for R2) improving predictions of peak flows for the Montmorency and Beaurivage watersheds (temperate climate conditions) and flows beyond the rainfall season in the Sassandra watershed. The proposed automatic calibration procedure introduced in this paper may be applied to other distributed hydrological model. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".