MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reply on RC2

2024· peer-review· en· W4400235628 on OpenAlexaff
Tek Kshetri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study assesses the impact of different flux parameterizations and model parameters on simulations of snow depth. Through a sensitivity analysis in a process-based snow model based on the SUMMA framework, various options for parametrizing snow processes and adjusting parameter values were evaluated to identify optimal modeling approaches, understand sources of uncertainty, and determine reasons for model weaknesses. The study focused on model parameterizations of precipitation partitioning, liquid water flow, snow albedo, atmospheric stability, and thermal conductivity. In this study, sensitivity analysis (SA) is performed using the one-at-a-time (OAT) SA method as well as the Morris Method to estimate Elementary Effects, aiming to further explore the magnitudes and patterns of sensitivities. The sensitivity analyses in this study are used to evaluate process parameterizations, model parameter values, and model configurations. Performance metrics such as the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), the Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE), the root mean squared log error (RMSLE), and mean are used to assess the similarity between simulated and observed data. Bootstrapping is employed to estimate the variability of mean Elementary Effects and establish confidence bounds. The key findings of this research indicate that sensitivity analysis of snow modelling parameters plays a crucial role in understanding their impact on decision outcomes. The study identified the most sensitive parameters, such as critical temperature and thermal conductivity of snow, as well as liquid water drainage parameters. It was observed that water balance fluxes exhibited higher sensitivity than energy balance fluxes in simulating snow processes. The analysis also highlighted the importance of accurately representing water balance processes in snow models for improved accuracy and reliability. A key finding in this study is that the sensitivity of performance metrics to model parameters is contaminated by equifinality (i.e., parameter perturbations lead to similar performance metrics for quite different snow depth time series), and hence many published parameter sensitivity studies may provide misleading results. These findings have implications for snow hydrology research and water resource management, providing valuable insights for optimizing snow modelling and enhancing decision-making.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0230.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1920.143

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.327 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→