Evaluating the Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Irrigation Water Components for Water Resources Management Using Geo-Informatics Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatio-temporal distribution of irrigation water components was evaluated at the canal command area in Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) by using a remote sensing-based geo-informatics approach. Satellite-derived MODIS product-based Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land (SEBAL) was used for the estimation of the actual evapotranspiration (ETa). The ground data-based advection aridity method (AA) was used to calibrate and validate the model. Statistical analysis of the SEBAL based ETa and AA shows the mean values of 87.1 mm and 47.9 mm during Kharif season (May–November) and 100 mm and 77 mm during the Rabi Season (December–April). Mean NSEs of 0.72 and 0.85 and RMSEs 34.9 and 5.76 during the Kharif and the Rabi seasons were observed for ETa and AA, respectively. Rainfall data were calibrated with the point observatory data of the metrological stations. The average annual ETa was found 899 mm for defined four cropping years (2011–2012 to 2014–2015) with the minimum average value of 63.3 mm in January and the maximum average value of 110.6 mm in August. Average of the sum of net canal water use (NCWU) and rainfall during the study period of four years was 548 mm (36% of ETa). Seasonal analysis revealed 39% and 61% of groundwater extraction proportion during Rabi and Kharif seasons, dependent upon the occurrence of rainfall and crop phenology. Overall, the results provide insight into the interrelationships between key water resources management components and the variation of these through time, offering information to improve the strategic planning and management of available water resources in this region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".