MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065894670 · doi:10.13031/2013.24100

Water Quality Modeling of Two Agricultural Fields in Southern Quebec Using SWAT

2007· article· en· W2065894670 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Apurva Gollamudi, Chandra A. Madramootoo, P. Enright

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the ASABE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsTile drainageEnvironmental scienceSoil and Water Assessment ToolHydrology (agriculture)SWAT modelWater qualitySurface runoffDrainagePhosphorusWatershedNitrateSoil waterSoil scienceStreamflowGeologyEcologyDrainage basinGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To study the dynamics of nutrient transport at the field scale, we collected data from two tile-drained agricultural fields in the Pike River watershed of southern Quebec. A two-year data set was used to calibrate and validate the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for sediment, nitrate, and phosphorus loads exiting the field through surface runoff and tile drainage. We found that SWAT output on water quality required an accurate estimation of the timing and form of field management practices employed. After calibration, the monthly coefficients of performance (Cp) over four site-years varied from 0.23 to 0.89 for sediment loads, from 0.48 to 1.35 for nitrate loads, and from 0.38 to 0.67 for total phosphorus loads. Subsurface nitrate loads accounted for 97.7% and 86.7% of the total nitrate yield, while particulate phosphorus accounted for 61.2% and 87.7% of total phosphorus load on sites 1 and 2, respectively. SWAT underestimated nitrate loads in subsurface drainage during spring snowmelt and large storms. Sediments and particulate phosphorus predictions were most accurate of all simulated parameters, whereas dissolved phosphorus was marginally overestimated year-round. Overall, SWAT satisfactorily reproduced field observations for sediment and nutrient transport and could be used to compare the impacts of implementing different best management practices (BMP) on individual fields for the study site.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the ASABESame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207