MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170015719 · doi:10.1002/hyp.1064

System dynamics model for predicting floods from snowmelt in North American prairie watersheds

2002· article· en· W2170015719 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceStreamflowHydrology (agriculture)WatershedFlood mythInterceptionFlood forecastingDrainage basinSnowPrecipitationMeteorologyGeologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study uses a system dynamics approach to explore hydrological processes in the geographic locations where the main contribution to flooding is coming from the snowmelt. Temperature is identified as a critical factor that affects watershed hydrological processes. Based on the dynamic processes of the hydrologic cycle occurring in a watershed, the feedback relationships linking the watershed structure, as well as the climate factors, to the streamflow generation were identified prior to the development of a system dynamics model. The model is used to simulate flood patterns generated by snowmelt under temperature change in the spring. Model structure captures a vertical water balance using five tanks representing snow, interception, surface, subsurface and groundwater storage. Calibration and verification results show that temperature change and snowmelt play a key role in flood generation. Results indicate that simulated values match observed data very well. The goodness‐of‐fit between simulated and observed peak flow data is measured using coefficient of efficiency, coefficient of determination and square of the residual mass curve coefficient. For the Assiniboine River all three measures were in the interval between 0·92 and 0·96 and for the Red River between 0·89 and 0·97. The model is capable of capturing the essential dynamics of streamflow formation. Model input requires a set of initial values for all state variables and the time series of daily temperature and precipitation information. Data from the Red River Basin, shared by Canada and the USA, are used in the model development and testing. 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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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