MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399770105 · doi:10.13031/ja.15427

Evaluation of Winter Hydrology Performance of Three Field-Scale Models

2024· article· en· W4399770105 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the ASABE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Scale (ratio)Environmental scienceField (mathematics)GeologyGeographyMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highlights EPIC, SHAW, and DRAINMOD models were evaluated for the simulation of winter hydrology. Energy-based models can better simulate late-winter and early-spring hydrology under winter conditions. Effective simulation of soil temperature and soil hydraulics in winters were identified as potential areas of development in temperature-based models. Abstract. The deterioration of Lake Erie's water quality is one of the major concerns in North America. A considerable percentage of annual phosphorus runoff occurs during the non-growing season in cold agricultural regions such as those in the Great Lakes region. Consequently, without accurate simulation of water flow during cold periods, reliable modeling of sediment and nutrient loads to surface water bodies is not achievable. Three hydrological models (EPIC, SHAW, and DRAINMOD) were evaluated for their capacity to predict winter tile flow and to highlight the significant processes that have a larger effect on runoff simulation at a field site in Southern Ontario, Canada. The SHAW model adequately predicted both soil temperature at 10 cm depth (R 2 = 0.95; 2013-2014) and winter tile flow (2012-2014, Nov-Apr; R 2 = 0.52; PBIAS = 7; NSE = 0.49). In the case of tile flow, DRAINMOD exhibited comparable results to the SHAW model for the same period (R 2 =0.55, PBIAS = -28, NSE = 0.58). EPIC was not able to perform satisfactorily in simulating the tile flow during winter conditions, which was attributed to the model’s erroneous prediction of soil temperature from air temperature. It was determined that energy-based models like DRAINMOD and SHAW can better simulate late-winter and early-spring hydrological conditions. Keywords: Agricultural runoff, Canadian winter hydrology, Hydrological models, Soil temperature, Tile flow.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.228 · 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