MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119712424 · doi:10.1002/hyp.14032

A dynamic prediction model for time‐to‐peak

2021· article· en· W3119712424 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mistaya Langridge, Ed McBean, Hossein Bonakdari, Bahram Gharabaghi

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAntecedent moistureStormDrainage basinSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologySet (abstract data type)Runoff curve numberComputer scienceGeographyGeologyCartographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A simplified empirical equation is developed for widespread prediction of dynamic catchment response time. This model allows for time‐to‐peak prediction to evolve from static, lumped models, thereby providing a single value for any storm within a given catchment, using a single set of input parameters, that can be applied to a dynamic model, thus accounting for the variability between storm sizes and catchment moisture conditions. These dynamic prediction methods are translated to North America for the first time. This allows the concepts and prediction methods for catchment response time prediction previously established for the United Kingdom (UK), to be translated to a simple empirical equation for use in North America, through the use of selected study areas in Canada and the United States. This reconfigured model is statistically successful in both the UK and North America and allows for a straightforward implementation of dynamic time‐to‐peak prediction. Further, the reconfigured model introduces the use of a runoff coefficient ( R c ) to encompass historical catchment wetness, increasing the ease of incorporating antecedent moisture condition into predictions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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