MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980313990 · doi:10.1680/wama.12.00113

New and improved four-parameter non-linear Muskingum model

2013· article· en· W1980313990 on OpenAlexaff
Said M. Easa

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExponentWeightingConstraint (computer-aided design)Applied mathematicsStorage modelMathematicsInflowEstimation theoryFunction (biology)OutflowMathematical modelTerm (time)Power functionStatisticsMathematical analysisComputer sciencePhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two mathematical forms of the non-linear Muskingum model, which involves a storage parameter, weighting parameter and an exponent parameter. In the first form, the exponent parameter is associated with the inflow and outflow variables of the storage equation; in the second form, it is associated with the weighted storage term of that equation. The second form has been more popular as it is easier to estimate and produces a better fit to observed data. This paper proposes a new four-parameter non-linear Muskingum model that assumes a power function of the channel storage and in effect combines the two known mathematical forms of the model. The resulting model provides more degrees of freedom in fitting observed data. The problem is formulated as a mathematical optimisation model that minimises the sum of the squared deviations between observed and estimated outflows. A constraint among the four model parameters is developed to ensure non-negative outflows. Application of the proposed model shows that it could substantially (up to almost 80%) improve the fit to observed outflows.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.174 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations59
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water ManagementSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207