Model structure and uncertainty for stochastic non-point source modelling applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uncertainty associated with a rainfall-runoff and non-point source loading (NPS) model can be attributed to both the parameterization and model structure. An interesting implication of the areal nature of NPS models is the direct relationship between model structure (i.e. sub-watershed size) and sample size for the parameterization of spatial data. The approach of this research is to find structural limitations in scale for the use of the conceptual NPS model, then examine the scales at which suitable stochastic depictions of key parameter sets can be generated. The overlapping regions are optimal (and possibly the only suitable regions) for conducting meaningful stochastic analysis with a given NPS model. Previous work has sought to find optimal scales for deterministic analysis (where, in fact, calibration can be adjusted to compensate for sub-optimal scale selection); however, analysis of stochastic suitability and uncertainty associated with both the conceptual model and the parameter set, as presented here, is novel; as is the strategy of delineating a watershed based on the uncertainty distribution. The results of this paper demonstrate a narrow range of acceptable model structure for stochastic analysis in the chosen NPS model. In the case examined, the uncertainties associated with parameterization and parameter sensitivity are shown to be outweighed in significance by those resulting from structural and conceptual decisions. © 2011 Copyright IAHS Press.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".