MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898159966 · doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12688

Integrated, Regional‐Scale Hydrologic Modeling of Inland Lakes

2018· article· en· W2898159966 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Z. Hanson, Jacob A. Zwart, Joseph Vanderwall, Christopher T. Solomon, Stuart E. Jones, Alan F. Hamlet, Diogo Bolster

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHydrological modellingEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Forcing (mathematics)Water resourcesBiogeochemical cycleScale (ratio)Resource (disambiguation)Simulation modelingGroundwaterSurface waterComputer scienceClimatologyGeologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inland lakes constitute an important global freshwater resource and are often defining features of local and regional landscapes. While coupled surface water (SW) and groundwater (GW) models are increasingly available, there is a clear need for spatially explicit yet computationally parsimonious modeling frameworks to explore the impacts of climate, land use, and other drivers on lake hydrologic and biogeochemical processes. To address this need, we developed a new method to simulate daily water budgets for many individual lakes at large spatial scales. By integrating SW, GW, and lake water budget models in a simple manner, we created a modeling framework capable of simulating the historical and future hydrologic dynamics of lakes with varying hydrologic characteristics. By extension, the model output enables ecological modeling in response to hydrologic drivers. As a case study, we applied the model to a large, lake‐rich region in northern Wisconsin and Michigan, simulating daily water budgets for nearly 4,000 lakes over a 36‐year period. Despite minimal calibration efforts, our simulated results compared reasonably well with observations and more sophisticated modeling approaches. Our integrated modeling requires very limited information, can be run on readily available computer resources, such as a desktop PC, and can be applied at regional, continental, or global scales, where necessary model setup and forcing data are available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207