Approaches to Evaluate Water Quality Model Parameter Uncertainty for Adaptive TMDL Implementation<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The National Research Council recommended Adaptive Total Maximum Daily Load implementation with the recognition that the predictive uncertainty of water quality models can be high. Quantifying predictive uncertainty provides important information for model selection and decision‐making. We review five methods that have been used with water quality models to evaluate model parameter and predictive uncertainty. These methods (1) Regionalized Sensitivity Analysis, (2) Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation, (3) Bayesian Monte Carlo, (4) Importance Sampling, and (5) Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) are based on similar concepts; their development over time was facilitated by the increasing availability of fast, cheap computers. Using a Streeter‐Phelps model as an example we show that, applied consistently, these methods give compatible results. Thus, all of these methods can, in principle, provide useful sets of parameter values that can be used to evaluate model predictive uncertainty, though, in practice, some are quickly limited by the “curse of dimensionality” or may have difficulty evaluating irregularly shaped parameter spaces. Adaptive implementation invites model updating, as new data become available reflecting water‐body responses to pollutant load reductions, and a Bayesian approach using MCMC is particularly handy for that task.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".