MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889065767 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v10n3p92

The Desna River Daily Multi-Site Streamflow Modeling Using SWAT with Detail Snowmelt Adjustment

2018· article· en· W2889065767 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Valeriy Osypov, Nataliia Osadcha, Dmytro Hlotka, Volodymyr Osadchyi, Juriy Nabyvanets

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVolkswagen Foundation
KeywordsSnowmeltStreamflowEnvironmental scienceSoil and Water Assessment ToolHydrology (agriculture)SWAT modelEvapotranspirationSurface runoffDrainage basinSnowCalibrationHydrological modellingMeteorologyClimatologyGeographyGeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ukrainian Government started the process of EU water Directives implementation aimed at developing of the River Basin Management Plan for 9 main river catchments. The program SWAT was tested to simulate the water flow of a large plain river with a predominant snow supply. River discharges (12 gauges), snow cover depth (13 stations), and the soft data, including graphically defined surface runoff and MODIS evapotranspiration, were used to calibrate the model. The calibration flowchart, along with a detailed source data description, is proposed to aid with streamflow simulation for the snowmelt-driven watersheds and fill the existing gap of distributed hydrological modeling in the region. The main issues with snow simulation and climate data coverage are discussed. The program SUFI-2 in SWAT-CUP package was used for performing calibration/validation and uncertainty analysis. The statistics (R2, NSE, PBIAS) showed good agreement (NS > 0.7, R2 > 0.75, PBIAS < ±10%) for a major part of the gauges and satisfactory for all of them (NS > 0.5, R2 > 0.6, PBIAS < ±15%), except of two linked upstream outlets. This study provides the basis for further research on water resources, the impacts of climate change, and water quality issues.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207