MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074256124 · doi:10.1623/hysj.53.5.961

Evaluation of streamflow simulation by SWAT model for two small watersheds under snowmelt and rainfall

2008· article· en· W2074256124 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceSnowpackSoil and Water Assessment ToolStreamflowSWAT modelCalibrationSnowHydrology (agriculture)ClimatologyWater yearMeteorologyWater resourcesWatershedDrainage basinStatisticsGeographyComputer scienceMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The degradation of the river water quality in Canadian rural catchments is of concern. In these catchments, the Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model can help better understand the problems related to diffuse pollution. The numerous documented applications of SWAT have been dominated by areas uniquely driven by rainfall. Given that Canadian hydroclimatic conditions differ due to the presence of a seasonal snowpack of long duration, evaluation of the hydrological performance needs to be performed prior to attempting any water quality simulations. The objective of the present work is to evaluate the hydrological behaviour of the SWAT model under snowmelt and rainfall for two small watersheds located in southeastern Canada. Different calibration schemes are evaluated including seasonal effects. One-year calibration gave satisfactory daily performances measured with Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NS) ranging between 61 and 83% and deviations of volume (Dv ) between −10 and 1%, while in validation, NS was 40–73% and Dv between −20 and −3%. The SWAT model has difficulties in reconciling both seasons. When winter and summer data are used separately to calibrate the model, the model performance is still much better for the winter season than for the summer one. However, the latter is considerably improved when only summer observations are provided for calibration. Conversely, calibration based strictly on the winter observations provides no real advantage over that based on all available data. A two-step composite calibration, which optimizes the SWAT snow accumulation and melt-related parameters on the winter data, after all other model parameters have been optimized on the summer data, provides a compromise. Résumé La dégradation de la qualité des eaux dans les bassins versants canadiens à vocation agricole est préoccupante. Dans ces bassins versants, le modèle Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) serait utile pour mieux comprendre la problématique de pollution diffuse. Les nombreuses applications documentées de SWAT ont été limitées à des régions uniquement contrôlées par la pluie. Étant donné que les conditions hydroclimatiques canadiennes diffèrent par la présence d'une couverture de neige saisonnière de longue durée, une évaluation de la performance hydrologique doit être effectuée avant de tenter des simulations de la qualité de l'eau. L'objectif des présents travaux est d'évaluer le comportement hydrologique du modèle SWAT sujet à des évènements de fonte nivale et de pluie pour deux petits bassins versants localisés dans le sud-est du Canada. Différentes approches de calage sont évaluées en incluant les effets saisonniers. Un calage sur un an a permis d'obtenir des performances journalières satisfaisantes avec des coefficients de Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) variant entre 61 et 83% et des écarts de volume (Dv ) compris entre −10 et 1%, alors qu'en validation NS a varié entre 40 et 73% et Dv entre −20 et −3%. Le modèle SWAT a des difficultés à concilier les deux saisons. Lorsque les données hivernales et estivales sont utilisées séparément pour caler le modèle, la performance du modèle est toujours bien meilleure en hiver qu'en été. Cette dernière est cependant considérablement améliorée lorsque seules les observations estivales sont utilisées pour le calage. En contrepartie, un calage basé sur les seules observations hivernales n'apporte aucun avantage concret par rapport à un calage avec toutes les données disponibles. Un calage composite en deux temps, qui optimise les paramètres de SWAT relatifs à l'accumulation et à la fonte de la neige avec les données hivernales, après optimisation de tous les autres paramètres du modèle avec les données estivales, mène à un compromis. Key words: calibrationseasonal effectsperformancesnowmelt modellingsoutheastern CanadaSWATwater qualityMots clefs: calageeffets saisonniersperformancemodélisation de la fonte nivalesud-est du CanadaSWATqualité de l'eau

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.

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)0.003
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.210 · 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