MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Semidistributed Form of the Tank Model Coupled with Artificial Neural Networks

2006· article· en· W2038396159 on OpenAlexaff
Jieyun Chen, Barry J. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface runoffWatershedEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Artificial neural networkConceptual modelRunoff modelVfloRunoff curve numberDrainage basinHydrological modellingComputer scienceGeologyEcologyGeographyClimatologyArtificial intelligenceGeotechnical engineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional conceptual rainfall–runoff models in the lumped form are usually developed without consideration of the spatial variation of rainfall and the heterogeneity of the watershed geomorphological nature. As an improvement to traditional conceptual models of the lumped form, a semidistributed form of the Tank model coupled with artificial neural networks (ANNs) is proposed herein. As a result, the effect of spatial variations of rainfall and model parameters can be investigated by dividing the entire catchment into a number of subcatchments and applying the spatially varied rainfall inputs and parameters to each subcatchment. Furthermore, in contrast to the linear summation commonly used in watershed routing that usually regards the total simulated runoff at the entire catchment outlet as a linear superposition of the routed runoff from all individual subcatchments, artificial neural networks are employed to explore nonlinear transformations of the runoff generated from the individual subcatchments into the total runoff at the entire watershed outlet. As illustrated in this study, coupling ANNs with traditional conceptual models reveals a promising new approach to catchment rainfall-runoff modeling.

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)0.000
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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