Predicting Acidification Recovery at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire: Evaluation of Four Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance and prediction uncertainty (owing to parameter and structural uncertainties) of four dynamic watershed acidification models (MAGIC, PnET-BGC, SAFE, and VSD) were assessed by systematically applying them to data from the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (HBEF), New Hampshire, where long-term records of precipitation and stream chemistry were available. In order to facilitate systematic evaluation, Monte Carlo simulation was used to randomly generate common model input data sets (n = 10,000) from parameter distributions; input data were subsequently translated among models to retain consistency. The model simulations were objectively calibrated against observed data (streamwater: 1963-2004, soil: 1983). The ensemble of calibrated models was used to assess future response of soil and stream chemistry to reduced sulfur deposition at the HBEF. Although both hindcast (1850-1962) and forecast (2005-2100) predictions were qualitatively similar across the four models, the temporal pattern of key indicators of acidification recovery (stream acid neutralizing capacity and soil base saturation) differed substantially. The range in predictions resulted from differences in model structure and their associated posterior parameter distributions. These differences can be accommodated by employing multiple models (ensemble analysis) but have implications for individual model applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".