MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023382835 · doi:10.2166/hydro.2007.024

Deterministic and probabilistic approaches to the development of pH total maximum daily loads: a comparative analysis

2007· article· en· W2023382835 on OpenAlexafffund
Amin Elshorbagy, Kamban Parasuraman, Gordon Putz, Lindell Ormsbee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydroinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProbabilistic logicTotal maximum daily loadPercentileMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceMargin (machine learning)Water qualityWatershedEnvironmental scienceReliability engineeringMathematical optimizationOperations researchStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most commonly used deterministic approach to the development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) fails to explicitly address issues related to a margin of safety and inherent variability of streamflows in the process of TMDL development. In this paper, the deterministic approach to pH TMDL development for Beech Creek watershed, Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, proposed by Ormsbee, Elshorbagy and Zechman is discussed. The shortcomings and the limitations of the assumptions associated with the deterministic approach are highlighted. An alternative probabilistic approach, to cope with the percentile-based water quality standards based on Monte Carlo simulation, is presented and compared to the deterministic approach. The proposed probabilistic approach provides a deeper insight into the issue of uncertainty and emphasizes the importance of handling the water quality standards and TMDLs in terms of magnitude and frequency rather than a single-valued approach. Expected exceedances and the confidence of compliance with percentile-based standards are estimated. Accordingly, an objective method of estimating the margin of safety for pH TMDLs is proposed.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydroinformaticsSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207