MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235940844 · doi:10.5194/hess-2016-462

Simulating cold-region hydrology in an intensively drained agricultural watershed in Manitoba, Canada, using the Cold Regions Hydrological Model

2016· preprint· en· W4235940844 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Marcos R. C. Cordeiro, Henry F. Wilson, Jason Vanrobaeys, John W. Pomeroy, Xing Fang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceWatershedSnowmeltTributarySurface runoffStreamflowDrainageBaseflowDrainage basinGeologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Eutrophication and flooding are perennial problems in agricultural watersheds of the northern Great Plains. A high proportion of annual runoff and nutrient transport occurs with snowmelt in this region. Extensive surface drainage modification, frozen soils, and frequent backwater or ice damming impacts on flow measurement represent unique challenges to accurately modeling watershed scale hydrological processes. A physically-based, non-calibrated model created using the Cold Regions Hydrological Modelling platform (CRHM) was parameterized to simulate hydrological processes within a low slope, clay soil, and intensively surface drained agricultural watershed. These characteristics are common to most tributaries of the Red River of the North. Analysis of the observed water level records for the study watershed (La Salle River) indicate that ice cover and backwater issues at time of peak flow may impact the accuracy of both modeled and measured stream flows, highlighting the value of evaluating a non-calibrated model in this environment. Simulations best matched the streamflow record in years when peak and annual discharges were equal to or above the medians of 6.7 m3 s−1 and 1.25 × 107 m3, respectively, with an average Nash-Sutcliff efficiency (NSE) of 0.76. Simulation of low-flow years (below the medians) was more challenging (average NSE

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→