MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328105373 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129414

Ten strategies towards successful calibration of environmental models

2023· article· en· W4328105373 on OpenAlexafffund
Juliane Mai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsCalibrationEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model calibration is the procedure of finding model settings such that simulated model outputs best match the observed data. Model calibration is necessary when the model parameters cannot directly be measured as is the case with a wide range of environmental models where parameters are conceptually describing upscaled and effective physical processes. Model calibration is therefore an important step of environmental modeling as the model might otherwise provide random outputs if never compared to a ground truth. Model calibration itself is often referred to be an art due to its plenitude of intertwined steps and necessary decisions along the way before a calibration can be carried out or can be regarded successful. This work provides a general guide specifying which steps a modeler needs to undertake, how to diagnose the success of each step, and how to identify the right action to revise steps that were not successful. The procedure is formalized into ten iterative steps generally appearing in calibration experiments. Each step of this “calibration life cycle” is either illustrated with an exemplary calibration experiment or providing an explicit checklist the modeler can follow. These ten strategies are: (1) using sensitivity information to guide the calibration, (2) handling of parameters with constraints, (3) handling of data ranging orders of magnitude, (4) choosing the data to base the calibration on, (5) presenting various methods to sample model parameters, (6) finding appropriate parameter ranges, (7) choosing objective functions, (8) selecting a calibration algorithm, (9) determining the success and quality of a multi-objective calibration, and (10) providing a checklist to diagnose calibration performance using ideas introduced in the previous steps. The formal definition of strategies through the calibration process is providing an overview while shedding a light on connections between these main ingredients to calibrate an environmental model and will therefore enable especially novice modelers to succeed.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations77
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrologySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207