Calibration, validation and uncertainty analysis of a SWAT water quality model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sediment and nutrient pollution in water bodies is threatening human health and the ecosystem, due to rapid land use changes and improper agricultural practices. The impact of the nonpoint source pollution needs to be evaluated for the sustainable use of water resources. An ideal tool like the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) can assess the impact of pollutant loads on the drainage area, which could be beneficial for developing a water quality management model. This study aims to evaluate the SWAT model’s multi-objective and multivariable calibration, validation, and uncertainty analysis at three different sites of the Yarra River drainage area in Victoria, Australia. The drainage area is split into 51 subdrainage areas in the SWAT model. The model is calibrated and validated for streamflow from 1990 to 2008 and sediment and nutrients from 1998 to 2008. The results show that most of the monthly and annual calibration and validation for streamflow, nutrients, and sediment at the three selected sites are found with Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency values greater than 0.50. Furthermore, the uncertainty analysis of the model shows satisfactory results where the p-factor value is reliable by considering 95% prediction uncertainty and the d-factor value is close to zero. The model's results indicate that the model performs well in the river's watershed, which helps construct a water quality management model. Finally, the model application in the cost-effective management of water quality might reduce pollution in water bodies due to land use and agricultural activities, which would be beneficial to water management managers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".