Multi-Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Through Coupling Bayesian-Based Simulation And Mechanism-Based Effluent Trading Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multiple rivers flowing into the same bay can be correlated in water quality management and together determine the environmental status of the bay. Nonpoint source pollution management for multi-watershed aiming to alleviate environmental contamination can be under additional challenges and yield considerable economic and environmental benefits. In this study, a Bayesian simulation-based multi-watershed effluent trading designing model (BS-METM) is established for multi-watershed nonpoint source pollution management through incorporating techniques of water quality simulation, uncertainty analysis with Bayesian inference, optimal design for effluent trading, as well as mechanism analysis. BS-METM is capable of reflecting parameter uncertainties in nutrient simulation, disclosing the detailed optimal trading schemes under the impact of uncertainties and vital factors, and identifying optimal effluent trading mechanisms through revealing interaction among trading processes of multiple watersheds. BS-METM is applied to a real case of adjacent coastal watersheds (i.e. Daguhe and Moshuihe watersheds), which are identified as major sources of total phosphorus and ammonia nitrogen loadings to Jiaozhou Bay, China. Effluent trading optimization under multiple mechanisms, including intra-watershed trading, cross-watershed trading and non-trading, are conducted. The optimized industry scales and trading processes are obtained. The effects of vital factors on the trading process (i.e. environmental allowance-violation risk level and water availability level) are investigated. The interactions between water availability level and trading mechanism are also analyzed. It is proved that non-trading mechanism would be recommended under low water availability level and cross-watershed trading mechanism would be recommended under medium and high water availability level. The results provide a solid scientific basis for nonpoint source pollution management as well as effective sustainable development for multi-watershed 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".