Evaluation of the Simplified Dynamic Wave, Diffusion Wave and the Full Dynamic Wave Flood Routing Models
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
The accuracy of prediction and ease of use of the three popular flood routing models; simplified dynamic Wave, diffusion wave, and full dynamic wave were evaluated. The models were evaluated along a reach of the Credit River Watershed, in Southern Ontario, Canada. The simplified dynamic wave model showed better accuracy and easier formulation when compared against the diffusion wave and the full dynamic wave models. Indicating that the simplified dynamic wave model can be applied to reaches where the diffusion wave and the full dynamic wave models may not be applicable. The principle novel contributions of the paper are (a) the extension of the flood routing formulations by Keskin and Agiralioglu, (b) the use of a prismatic channel and floodplain with varying top-widths, (c) the validation of the methodology through the application of an event simulation to an actual river reach, and (d) comparison of the modeling results to those obtained using the full dynamic wave model and the diffusion wave 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 | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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