MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107441767 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r225-15

Multi-Objective Calibration of SWMM for Improved Simulation of the Hydrologic Regime

2006· article· en· W2107441767 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mauricio Herrera, Isobel W. Heathcote, William James, Andrea Bradford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorm Water Management ModelSortingCalibrationGenetic algorithmComputer scienceHydrological modellingHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceEngineeringMathematicsGeologyAlgorithmEcologySurface runoffMachine learningStatisticsStormwaterBiologyGeotechnical engineeringClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents a multi-objective calibration of the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) using the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) developed by Deb et al. (2001). The effects of model calibration on the representation of various hydrologic characteristics with ecologic and geomorphic relevance are studied. Results indicate that there are modeling conflicts between low flows, medium to bank-full flows, and high flows. As a consequence, calibration improvements of minimum water quality maintenance flows, decreases the agreement between computed and observed flows above bankfull elevations. The presence of these trade-offs should be acknowledged in model-based watershed management strategies in order to minimize the uncertainty bias towards certain characteristics of the flow regime. Results show the effects of such trade-offs in the model accuracy to represent different hydrologic quantities, such as mean monthly flows, peak monthly flow, minimum monthly flows, and flow durations and exceedance volumes for different flow ranges and months.

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)0.001
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 score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207