MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761417033 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2017.014

SWAT modeling of hydrology, sediment and nutrients from the Grand River, Ontario

2017· article· en· W2761417033 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aslam Hanief, Andrew E. Laursen

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceSoil and Water Assessment ToolSWAT modelSedimentWatershedNutrientSurface runoffSediment transportStreamflowDrainage basinGeologyEcologyGeographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Grand River watershed (GRW) is an important agricultural area in Southern Ontario. Land use has been modified by various human endeavors, altering hydrology and increasing export of sediment and nutrients. The objective of this study was to predict spatial and temporal patterns of hydrology, and export of sediment and nutrients from the GRW to Lake Erie using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The Sequential Uncertainty FItting (SUFI2) program was used to calibrate and validate stream flow for years 2001–2010. Calibration and validation of the SWAT model for monthly stream flow at York indicated good model performance (R2, NSE, and PBIAS = 0.64, 0.63 and 7.1 for calibration (2001–2005); = 0.82, 0.74 and 0.2, for validation (2006–2010)). The model was applied to predict sediment and nutrient export from the GRW into Lake Erie. Predicted loading at Dunnville (near the mouth) was 2.3 × 105 tonnes y−1 total suspended sediment, 7.9 × 103 tonnes y−1 TN, and 2.3 × 102 tonnes y−1 TP. This SWAT model can now be used to investigate the relative effects of best management practices, and to forecast effects of climate change, on sustainable water management, hydrology, and sediment and nutrient export to Lake Erie.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207