A Scientometric Review for Uncertainties in Integrated Simulation–Optimization Modeling System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water resources management is a challenging task caused by huge uncertainties and complexities in hydrological processes and human activities. Over the last three decades, various scholars have carried out the study on hydrological simulation under complex conditions and quantitatively characterized the associated uncertainties for water resources systems. To keep abreast of the development of the collective knowledge in this field, a scientometric review and metasynthesis of the existing uncertainty analysis research for supporting hydrological modeling and water resources management has been conducted. A total of 2020 publications from 1991 to 2018 were acquired from the Web of Science. The scientific structure, cooperation, and frontiers of the related domain were explored using the science mapping software CiteSpace V5.4.R3. Through co–citation, collaboration, and co–occurrence network study, the results present the leading contributors among all countries and hotspots in the research domain. In addition, synthetical uncertainty management for hydrological models and water resource systems under climatic and land use change will continue to be focused on. This study comprehensively evaluates various aspects of uncertainty analysis in hydrologic simulation–optimization systems, showcasing advanced data analysis and artificial intelligence technologies. It focuses on current research frontiers, aiding decision–makers in better understanding and managing the complexity and uncertainties of water resource systems, thereby enhancing the sustainability and efficiency of responses to environmental changes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.064 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".