MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039330930 · doi:10.1080/02626667.2020.1790566

A two-stage fuzzy-stochastic factorial analysis method for characterizing effects of uncertainties in hydrological modelling

2020· article· en· W3039330930 on OpenAlexaff
Y.R. Liu, Yongping Li, Jianwei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowmeltWatershedSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceRandomnessStreamflowRunoff curve numberFuzzy logicStage (stratigraphy)ExtrapolationRunoff modelHydrology (agriculture)SWAT modelSoil and Water Assessment ToolStatisticsSnowComputer scienceMathematicsDrainage basinMeteorologyGeologyGeographyGeotechnical engineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a two-stage fuzzy-stochastic factorial analysis (TFFA) method is developed and applied to the Vakhsh watershed (upper reaches of Aral Sea basin, Central Asia) for daily streamflow simulation. TFFA has advantages in identifying the major parameters that have important individual and interactive effects on model outputs, as well as assessing multiple uncertainties resulting from randomness and vagueness characteristics of model parameters. The results reveal that (a) nine major parameters (from a total of 24) have significant effects on Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) simulation performance for the study watershed; and (b) snowmelt-related parameters (including snowfall temperature, threshold temperature for snowmelt and s nowmelt factor) and runoff curve number (CN2) are most sensitive parameters for the runoff generation. The results also show that the proposed TFFA method can help enhance the hydrological model’s capability for runoff simulation/prediction, particularly for in data-scarce and high-mountainous watersheds.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological Sciences JournalSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207