MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390730516 · doi:10.4095/328952

Common hydrology features (CHyF) logical model

2024· report· en· W4390730516 on OpenAlexaff
M. W. Sondheim, C. J. Hodgson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Computer scienceGraphDrainage basinTheoretical computer scienceGeologyGeographyCartographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Open Geospatial Consortium has defined "OGC WaterML 2: Part 3 - Surface Hydrology Features (HY_Features) - Conceptual Model", but not any particular implementation of it. The Common Hydrology Features (CHyF) model extends HY_Features and makes some minor changes to it required for implementation and the delivery of high performance services. HY_Features discusses catchment coverage and topological relations. In CHyF these are key ideas, as is the notion that hydrologically defined network components form elements of a mathematical graph, allowing for very fast network traversal. HY_Features defines catchments and catchment networks, as well as rivers, channels, flowpaths and hydrographic networks. The CHyF logical model specifies a profile and some extensions to HY_Features, as required to implement topological and graph relations. This starts with the definition of elementary catchments and elementary flowpaths, which are treated as fundamental elements. They are tightly specified terms corresponding to basic catchments and flowpaths in HY_Features and the basic components in the standard reach-catchment model (Maidment and Clark, 2016). If they are subdivided, the result is simply more elementary catchments and elementary flowpaths. Consequently, they are the building blocks used to form complementary coverages as well as a graph structure referred to as a hygraph. Building the hygraph necessitates that connections between features be manifest through their geometry. Divergences and distributaries are supported in CHyF, as the hygraph need not be hierarchical. Nevertheless, CHyF does recognize hierarchical drainage basins and the value in identifying them explicitly (Blodgett, et al, 2021). Different kinds of elementary catchments and elementary flowpaths are defined in CHyF. Of note is that polygonal waterbody features, or portions of such features, are treated as elementary catchments in their own right. In addition to these water catchments, several kinds of land-based elementary catchments are recognized. These model constructs are compatible with the higher level conceptual model in HY_Features, although they differ in detail from other popular implementation models. With the approach taken it becomes practical to handle very large lakes and rivers, as well as coastal ocean zones. CHyF also includes wetlands, glaciers and snowfields as kinds of hydro features; these features help complete the concept of a catchment coverage as put forward by HY_Features.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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