Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of the Modified Wind Erosion Equation for Application in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The wind erosion equation (WEQ) was used for several decades for predicting soil loss by wind erosion, but few systematic studies on the uncertainty of predicting wind erosion have been conducted. Several researchers found that WEQ is not accurately representing soil erosion and under‐represents soil erodibility that consequently results in WEQ underestimations. WEQ was modified under Canadian conditions for the National Agri‐Environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program, referred as (WEQ‐NAHARP). The model, input, and parameter uncertainties that control model efficiency were used to analyze the local and universal uncertainties for WEQ‐NAHARP. One and ninety‐nine percentiles were used as lower and upper boundaries of uncertainty bound when using general likelihood uncertainty estimation for estimating the uncertainty of WEQ‐NAHARP's prediction. The soil erodibility (I), climate factor (C), and soil surface roughness factor (K) were found as the three most sensitive factors in predicting wind erosion in WEQ‐NAHARP. The vegetation cover factor (V) was discovered not sensitive to the prediction model as it is less than 1,000 kg ha−1and became very sensitive asV‐value is greater than 5,000 kg ha−1. Field length along the prevailing wind erosion direction (L) andVhave lower local sensitivity indexes than the other three factors. WEQ‐NAHARP underestimated wind erosion rate of Pampas, Argentina, and overestimated at Washington State, USA. This probably reflected the nature of WEQ‐NAHARP's behavior, which had a great uncertainty of its prediction. The model appears to underestimate total annual soil loss for coarse soil and overestimate annual soil loss for finer soil. Copyright © 2017 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".