Using the SWAT model to improve process descriptions and define hydrologic partitioning in South Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Watershed-scale modeling can be a valuable tool to aid in quantification of water quality and yield; however, several challenges remain. In many watersheds, it is difficult to adequately quantify hydrologic partitioning. Data scarcity is prevalent, accuracy of spatially distributed meteorology is difficult to quantify, forest encroachment and land use issues are common, and surface water and groundwater abstractions substantially modify watershed-based processes. Our objective is to assess the capability of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to capture event-based and long-term monsoonal rainfall–runoff processes in complex mountainous terrain. To accomplish this, we developed a unique quality-control, gap-filling algorithm for interpolation of high-frequency meteorological data. We used a novel multi-location, multi-optimization calibration technique to improve estimations of catchment-wide hydrologic partitioning. The interdisciplinary model was calibrated to a unique combination of statistical, hydrologic, and plant growth metrics. Our results indicate scale-dependent sensitivity of hydrologic partitioning and substantial influence of engineered features. The addition of hydrologic and plant growth objective functions identified the importance of culverts in catchment-wide flow distribution. While this study shows the challenges of applying the SWAT model to complex terrain and extreme environments; by incorporating anthropogenic features into modeling scenarios, we can enhance our understanding of the hydroecological impact.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".