Load Estimation Method Using Distributions with Covariates: A Comparison with Commonly Used Estimation Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Load estimates obtained using an approach based on statistical distributions with parameters expressed as a function of covariates (e.g., streamflow) (distribution with covariates hereafter called DC method) were compared to four load estimation methods: (1) flow‐weighted mean concentration; (2) integral regression; (3) segmented regression (the last two with Ferguson's correction factor); and (4) hydrograph separation methods. A total of 25 datasets (from 19 stations) of daily concentrations of total dissolved solids, nutrients, or suspended particulate matter were used. The selected stations represented a wide range of hydrological conditions. Annual flux errors were determined by randomly generating 50 monthly sample series from daily series. Annual and interannual biases and dispersions were evaluated and compared. The impact of sampling frequency was investigated through the generation of bimonthly and weekly surveys. Interannual uncertainty analysis showed that the performance of the DC method was comparable with those of the other methods, except for stations showing high hydrological variability. In this case, the DC method performed better, with annual biases lower than those characterizing the other methods. Results show that the DC method generated the smallest pollutant load errors when considering a monthly sampling frequency for rivers showing high variability in hydrological conditions and contaminant concentrations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".