Calibration of the Hydrological Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) model using automatic calibration and geographical information systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Calibrating a comprehensive, multi‐parameter conceptual hydrological model, such as the Hydrological Simulation Program Fortran model, is a major challenge. This paper describes calibration procedures for water‐quantity parameters of the HSPF version 10·11 using the automatic‐calibration parameter estimator model coupled with a geographical information system (GIS) approach for spatially averaged properties. The study area was the Grand River watershed, located in southern Ontario, Canada, between 79° 30′ and 80° 57′W longitude and 42° 51′ and 44° 31′N latitude. The drainage area is 6965 km2. Calibration efforts were directed to those model parameters that produced large changes in model response during sensitivity tests run prior to undertaking calibration. A GIS was used extensively in this study. It was first used in the watershed segmentation process. During calibration, the GIS data were used to establish realistic starting values for the surface and subsurface zone parameters LZSN, UZSN, COVER, and INFILT and physically reasonable ratios of these parameters among watersheds were preserved during calibration with the ratios based on the known properties of the subwatersheds determined using GIS. This calibration procedure produced very satisfactory results; the percentage difference between the simulated and the measured yearly discharge ranged between 4 to 16%, which is classified as good to very good calibration. The average simulated daily discharge for the watershed outlet at Brantford for the years 1981–85 was 67 m3 s−1 and the average measured discharge at Brantford was 70 m3 s−1. The coupling of a GIS with automatice calibration produced a realistic and accurate calibration for the HSPF model with much less effort and subjectivity than would be required for unassisted calibration. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".