Fuzzy set based error measure for hydrologic model evaluation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional error measures (e.g. mean squared error, mean relative error) are often used in the field of water resources to evaluate the performance of models developed for modeling various hydrological processes. However, these measures may not always provide a comprehensive assessment of the performance of the model intended for a specific application. A new error measure is proposed and developed in this paper to fill the gap left by existing traditional error measures for performance evaluation. The measure quantifies the error that corresponds to the hydrologic condition and model application under consideration and also facilitates selection of the best model whenever multiple models are available for that application. Fuzzy set theory is used to model the modeler's perceptions of predictive accuracy in specific applications. The development of the error measure is primarily intended for use with models that provide hydrologic time series predictions. Hypothetical and real-life examples are used to illustrate and evaluate this measure. Results indicate that use of this measure is rational and meaningful in the selection process of an appropriate model from a set of competing models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it