Investigation of the model complexity required in runoff simulation at different time scales / Etude de la complexité de modélisation requise pour la simulation d'écoulement à différentes échelles temporelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “optimal” model complexity is defined as the minimum watershed model structure required for realistic representation of runoff processes. This paper examines the effects of model complexity at different time scales, daily and hourly. Two watershed models with different levels of complexity were constructed and their capability to simulate runoff from a watershed was evaluated. Both models were tested on the same watershed using identical meteorological input, thereby assuring that any difference between model outputs is due only to their model structure. It is demonstrated that, at a daily time scale, a simple model gives good results. For the mountain situation, in which snowmelt is a dominant influence, the nonlinearity of the runoff processes is moderate, and therefore a simple model works well. The model produced good results over a period of 28 years of continuous simulation. However, this simpler model was inadequate when tested on an hourly time scale due to greater nonlinear effects, especially when modelling high-intensity rainfall events. Therefore, the hourly simulation benefited from the more complex model structure. These model results show that optimal watershed model complexity depends on temporal resolution, namely the simulation period and the computational time step. It was shown that certain process representations and model parameters that appeared unimportant during the long-term simulation had significant effects on the short-term extreme event model simulation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".