MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integration of Hydrologic Gray Model with Global Search Method for Real-Time Flood Forecasting

2009· article· en· W2038297690 on OpenAlexaff
Min Goo Kang, Seung Woo Park, Ximing Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrographFlood forecastingSurface runoffFlood mythHydrological modellingGray (unit)RegressionCalibrationBase flowRegression analysisLead timeEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceStatisticsHydrology (agriculture)MathematicsGeologyClimatologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a hydrologic gray model integrated with a global search method to improve the accuracy of real-time flood forecasting for two watersheds. The model’s applicability is evaluated by comparing the runoff forecasts to the observed values. The model’s accuracy is compared with the accuracy of two base models that employ multiple regression equations and the model capability is verified in real situations. The model parameters are corrected by combining the gray system parameters. The fifth-order differential equation is adopted to represent the characteristics of the study watersheds. The statistical values between the observed values and the runoff forecasts in calibration and validation indicate that the simulations are in close agreement with the observations. The model provides more consistent and satisfactory runoff forecasts than the multiple regression models across all flow ranges; the accuracy of the runoff forecasts varies according to hydrograph stages and lead times. These results demonstrate that the proposed model is able to reasonably forecast runoff with 1–6 h of lead time for the two study watersheds.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydrologic EngineeringSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207