MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030913732 · doi:10.1111/jawr.12116

Application of<scp>SWAT</scp>with and without Variable Source Area Hydrology to a Large Watershed

2013· article· en· W2030913732 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Woodbury, Christine A. Shoemaker, Zachary M. Easton, Dillon M. Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNew York State Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of WaterlooU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsWatershedSurface runoffHydrology (agriculture)Soil and Water Assessment ToolEnvironmental scienceSWAT modelStreamflowBiogeochemical cycleRunoff curve numberDrainage basinGeographyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, two different versions of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool ( SWAT ) model were used to simulate the hydrology and biogeochemical response of the Cannonsville Reservoir watershed, in New York. The first version distributes overland flow in ways that are consistent with variable source area ( VSA ) hydrology driven by saturation excess runoff, whereas the second version is the standard version of SWAT . These two models were each calibrated for streamflow (Flow), particulate phosphorus ( PP ), total dissolved phosphorus ( TDP ), and sediment (Sed) against measured data from the 1,200 km 2 Cannonsville watershed. The standard version of the model yielded an r 2 between the measured and simulated data of 0.85, 0.73, 0.70, and 0.72 for Flow, Sed, TDP , and PP , respectively. The VSA version yielded an r 2 of 0.84, 0.69, 0.72, and 0.53 for Flow, Sed, TDP , and PP , respectively. The two models were then used to determine the maximum upper bound on the reduction in phosphorus loading by removing all of the corn in the watershed. The average reductions between the two models were 65 and 37% for PP and TDP , respectively. The VSA version was also used to estimate the effect of moving corn land in the watershed from the wettest, most runoff prone areas to the driest, least runoff prone areas, which cannot be done directly with the standard SWAT 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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207