Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrological models (HMs) are essential tools to explore terrestrial water dynamics and to anticipate future hydrological events. Since their inception, HMs have been developed in parallel by different institutions. There is now a plethora of HMs, yet a relative absence of cross-model developments (code is almost never portable between models) and of guidance on model selection (modellers typically stick to the model they are most familiar with). Furthermore, traditional HMs, developed over the last decades by successive code additions, are rarely adapted to modern hydrological challenges, principally because they lack modularity. These HMs typically rely on a single model structure (most processes are simulated by a single set of equations), which make it difficult to i) understand differences between models, ii) run a large ensemble of models, iii) capture the spatial variability of hydrological processes and iv) develop and improve hydrological models in a coordinated fashion across the community. These limitations can be overcome by modular modelling frameworks (MMFs), which are master templates for model generation. MMFs offer several options for each important modelling decision. They also allow users to add functionalities when they are required, by loading libraries developed and maintained by the community. This presentation uses FUSE (Framework for Understanding Structural Error) as an example of MMF for hydrology. FUSE enables the generation of a myriad of conceptual HMs by recombining elements from four commonly-used models. This presentation will summarize the development of FUSE version 2 (FUSE2), which was created with users in mind and significantly increases the usability and range of applicability of the original FUSE. In FUSE2, NetCDF output files contain a detailed description of the modelling decisions (e.g., selected modules, numerical scheme, parameter values), which improves reproducibility. FUSE2 also makes code re-usable, as modules can be used across the community and are not limited to a single model structure. After decades of siloed model development, we argue that MMFs are essential to develop and improve hydrological models in a coordinated fashion across the community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".