Coupling model uncertainty for coupled rainfall/runoff and surface water quality models in river problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Coupled hydrology and water quality models are an important tool today, used in the understanding and management of surface water and watershed areas. Such problems are generally subject to substantial uncertainty in parameters, process understanding, and data. Component models, drawing on different data, concepts, and structures, are affected differently by each of these uncertain elements. This paper proposes a framework wherein the response of component models to their respective uncertain elements can be quantified and assessed, using a hydrological model and water quality model as two exemplars. The resulting assessments can be used to identify model coupling strategies that permit more appropriate use and calibration of individual models, and a better overall coupled model response. One key finding was that an approximate balance of water quality and hydrological model responses can be obtained using both the QUAL2E and Mike11 water quality models. The balance point, however, does not support a particularly narrow surface response (or stringent calibration criteria) with respect to the water quality calibration data, at least in the case examined here. Additionally, it is clear from the results presented that the structural source of uncertainty is at least as significant as parameter‐based uncertainties in areal models. Copyright © 2012 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".