MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411229897 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.h552

First-Flush Driven Sediment Graph Modeling with Soil Moisture Accounting

2025· article· en· W4411229897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shariq Siddiqui, Pujitha Patil, Sudhanshu Mishra, Sharad K. Jain, Shashi Ranjan Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceSedimentWater contentGraphHydrology (agriculture)AccountingGeologyMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringBusinessGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first-flush is the initial surge of highly concentrated mass of pollutants in storm runoff, mobilizing mass accumulated on land surface after dry periods. Like initial abstraction (Ia) in hydrology—which is water lost through interception, infiltration, evaporation, and surface depression storage and does not contribute to immediate surface runoff—the first-flush also appears at the watershed outlet but isn't a true sediment loss. It is crucial for designing on-site treatment facilities, allowing efficient isolation, storage, and treatment of stormwater in small catchments. Neglecting the first-flush may underestimate early-stage erosion. Developing sediment yield and graph models (SYMs and SGMs) is challenging due to nonlinearity of rainfall-runoff-sediment transport, unrealistic inputs, parameter sensitivities, oversimplified processes, landscape heterogeneity, human impacts, and data limitations. The SYMs predict total sediment load, while SGMs capture its temporal variation. Integrating the first flush with conventional SGM improves its accuracy and reliability by considering loose surface debris, and prior land use. The proposed improved first-flush driven sediment graph model with soil moisture accounting (IFF-SMA-SGM) couples the first-flush concept with the soil conservation service-curve number (SCS-CN) method (now the natural resource conservation service (NRCS) curve number method), power law, and Nash’s instantaneous unit sediment graph (IUSG) approach. It considers initial or existing soil moisture (V0) and Ia to work out the sediment yield. The model was calibrated and validated using a total of 16 sediment graphs (in an 8:8 ratio) recorded at Sub-watershed 6 (W6), Sub-watershed 7 (W7), and Sub-watershed 14 (W14), in the Goodwin Creek (GC) experimental watersheds in Oxford, Mississippi, USA, and the Mansara watershed in Uttar Pradesh, India. The model closely replicated the observed sediment graphs during both calibration and validation, demonstrating strong agreement in peak sediment load (QPS), total sediment load (QS), and time to peak sediment load (tPS). The model demonstrated high efficiency across most calibration and validation events, reflecting strong alignment between simulated and observed sediment yields. This study also highlights the IFF-SMA-SGM model's strong potential for accurate sediment yield prediction in hydro-meteorologically similar watersheds.

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 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 score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207