Catchment-Scale Integrated Surface Water-Groundwater Hydrologic Modelling Using Conceptual and Physically Based Models: A Model Comparison Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of the use of an externally linked (MOBIDIC-MODFLOW) and a physically based (MIKE SHE) surface water-groundwater model to capture the integrated hydrologic responses of the Thomas Brook catchment, in Canada. The main objective of the study is to investigate the effect of simplification in representation of the hydrological processes in MOBIDIC-MODFLOW on its simulation accuracy. To this aim, MOBIDIC and MODFLOW were coupled in order to sequentially exchange the groundwater recharge and baseflow discharges within each computation time step. Using identical sets of hydrogeological properties for the two models, the coefficients of the gravity and capillary reservoirs in MOBIDIC were calibrated so as to closely predict the hydrological budget of the catchment simulated with MIKE SHE. The simulated results show that the two models can closely replicate the observed water table responses at two monitoring wells. However, in very shallow water table locations, the instantaneous response of the water table was not precisely captured in MOBIDIC-MODFLOW. Additionally, the simplified conceptualization of the unsaturated flow in MOBIDIC-MODFLOW resulted in overestimated groundwater recharge during spring and underestimation during summer. Moreover, the computational efficiency of MOBIDIC-MODFLOW, as compared to MIKE SHE, along with less required input data, confirms its potential for regional scale groundwater-surface water interaction modelling applications.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".