MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An uncertainty-based framework for incorporating sediment source fingerprinting into spatially-distributed soil erosion model testing

2020· article· en· W3091313945 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro Velloso Gomes Batista, J. Patrick Laceby, Jessica Davies, Teotônio Soares de Carvalho, Diego Tassinari, Marx Leandro Naves Silva, John Quinton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceTributaryErosionDrainage basinSampling (signal processing)Uncertainty analysisMonte Carlo methodChannel (broadcasting)Soil scienceGeologyStatisticsGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceMathematicsGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluating the usefulness of spatially-distributed soil erosion and sediment delivery models is inherently difficult. Complications stem from the uncertainty in models and measurements of system responses, as well as from the scarcity of commensurable spatial data for model testing. Here, we present an approach for evaluating distributed soil erosion and sediment delivery models, which incorporates sediment source fingerprinting into model testing within a stochastic framework. We applied the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) methodology to the Sediment Delivery Distributed (SEDD) model for the Mortes River catchment (~6600 km²) in Southeast Brazil. Sediment concentration measurements were used to estimate long-term sediment loads with a sediment rating curve. Regression uncertainty was propagated with posterior simulations of model coefficients. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate SEDD model realizations, which were compared against limits of acceptability of model errors derived from the uncertainty in the curve-estimated sediment loads. The models usefulness for identifying the sediment sources in the catchment was assessed by evaluating behavioral model realizations against sediment fingerprinting source apportionments. Accordingly, we developed a hierarchical tributary sampling design, in which sink sediments were sampled from multiple nodes in the main river channel. The relative contributions of the main sub-catchments in the basin were subsequently estimated by solving the fingerprinting un-mixing model with a Monte Carlo simulation. Results indicated that gauging station measurements of sediment loads were fairly uncertain (average annual specific sediment yields = 0.47 – 11.95 ton ha-1 yr-1). This led to 23.4 % of SEDD model realizations being considered behavioral system representations. Spatially-distributed estimates of sediment delivery to water courses were also highly uncertain, as grid-based absolute errors of SEDD results were hundredfold the median of the predictions. A comparison of SEDD outputs and fingerprinting source apportionments revealed an overall agreement between modeled contributions from individual sub-catchments to sediment loads, although some large discrepancies were found in a specific tributary. From a falsificationist perspective, the SEDD model could not be rejected, as many model realizations were behavioral. The partial agreement between fingerprinting and SEDD results provide some conditional corroboration of the models capability to identify the sources of sediments in the catchment, at least with some degree of spatial aggregation. However, the uncertainty in the grid-based outputs might dispute the models usefulness for actually quantifying sediment dynamics under the testing conditions. For management purposes, both SEDD and fingerprinting results indicated that most of the sediments reaching the hydroelectric power plant reservoir located at the outlet of the Mortes River originated from mid and upper catchment tributaries. The convergence of model results therefore evince that reducing reservoir sedimentation rates requires widespread soil conservation efforts throughout the catchment, instead of local/proximal interventions. Ultimately, we have shown how sediment source fingerprinting can be incorporated into the evaluation of spatially-distributed soil erosion and sediment delivery models while considering the uncertainty in both models and observational data.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207