MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995952870 · doi:10.3808/jei.200800133

A Hybrid Perturbation and Morris Approach for Identifying Sensitive Parameters in Surface Water Quality Models

2008· article· en· W1995952870 on OpenAlexaff
Yongtai Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMajor State Basic Research Development Program of China
KeywordsParameterized complexityPerturbation (astronomy)Biological systemNonlinear systemSensitivity (control systems)Water qualityComputer scienceApplied mathematicsMathematicsAlgorithmEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface water quality models (SWQM) are always developed as universal frameworks so that they can be flexibly employed to simulate a large variety of water bodies. These models are often over-parameterized (more parameters than needed are included in these models). As a result, it is necessary to identify sensitive parameters when these models are applied to the simulations of specific water bodies. Sensitivity analysis has been widely used as an effective tool to undertake the task. In this study, a hybrid approach was developed through integrating the parameter perturbation method and the Morris method into a general SWQM-parameter sensitivity analysis framework. The approach was applied to Lake Maumelle in Arkansas with its hydrodynamics and water quality being simulated by the model CE-QUAL-W2. The sensitivities of the 96 model parameters were firstly evaluated by the parameter perturbation method in the simulation of the variables including temperature, ammonium, nitrate-nitrite, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus and chlorophyll a, and 51 of them were found sensitive. The sensitivities of the 51 parameters were further investigated using the Morris method. It was found that each output variable was strongly sensitive to a distinctive set of parameters. It is also observed that the highly sensitive parameters display nonlinear relationships with the model outputs or strong correlations with other parameters. The obtained results from this study could provide a scientific base and solid start for the calibration, validation and application of the model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental InformaticsSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207