MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of Remote Sensing and GIS to Model Mountainous Rivers

2004· article· en· W2151178195 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fathi Saleh Ikweiri, Yee‐Chung Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDigital elevation modelEvapotranspirationLand coverTerrainWatershedHydrology (agriculture)Hydrological modellingEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingDrainage basinLand useGeologyCartographyComputer scienceClimatologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to develop a semidistributed, physically based hydrologic model (SDPB_HM) for mountainous watersheds areas. Most of the model’s required parameters were acquired using remote sensing and digital terrain elevation data. A three-stage computer classifier model was built based on the error back-propagation artificial neural network approach (EBPANN) and refined to classify the land cover types of the study area. In addition, the reflection properties of the land cover types were used to improve the technique of estimating the net radiation in Morton’s evapotranspiration model. A procedure was proposed for discretizing the watershed areas, aimed to increase the homogeneity and minimize the calculation time. The SDPB_HM was applied to the Albert River Basin in the Rocky Mountains in British Columbia, Canada. The Albert River meteorological data from October 1986 to September 1987 was used to calibrate the model parameters. In addition, the SDPB_HM was validated using the meteorological data of a case study from October 1987 to September 1988 and from October 1988 to September 1989. Comparison between the simulated and the observed flow at the outlet of river showed a good agreement during these periods.

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)0.000
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 score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydrologic EngineeringSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207