Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A guide to good practice in modeling semantics ...

Electronic data

  • wrcr20393

    Rights statement: ©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

    Final published version, 84.1 KB, PDF document

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors and referees

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors and referees. / Beven, Keith; Young, Peter.

In: Water Resources Research, Vol. 49, No. 8, 08.2013, p. 5092-5098.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Beven K, Young P. A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors and referees. Water Resources Research. 2013 Aug;49(8):5092-5098. doi: 10.1002/wrcr.20393

Author

Beven, Keith ; Young, Peter. / A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors and referees. In: Water Resources Research. 2013 ; Vol. 49, No. 8. pp. 5092-5098.

Bibtex

@article{a2d7b38978d74e2592dc1f4e0f30534a,
title = "A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors and referees",
abstract = "This opinion piece makes some suggestions about guidelines for modeling semantics that can be referred to by authors and referees. We discuss descriptions of model structures, different forms of simulation and prediction, descriptions of different sources of uncertainty in modeling practice, the language of model validation, and concepts of predictability and fitness-for-purpose. While not expecting universal agreement on these suggestions, given the loose usage of words in the literature, we hope that the discussion of the issues involved will at least give pause for thought and encourage good practice in model development and applications.Key PointsSemantics of hydrological modelling lack clarity Clarifications for simulation and forecasting and treatment of uncertainty Clarifications for model evaluation and falsification",
keywords = "simulation, epistemic uncertainty, aleatory uncertainty, validation, forecasting, falsification, THEORETICAL DERIVATION, HYDROLOGICAL MODELS, UNCERTAINTY, VALIDATION, WATER, FRAMEWORK, VERIFICATION, ASSESSMENTS, EQUATIONS, SCIENCE",
author = "Keith Beven and Peter Young",
note = "{\textcopyright}2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.",
year = "2013",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1002/wrcr.20393",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "5092--5098",
journal = "Water Resources Research",
issn = "0043-1397",
publisher = "AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A guide to good practice in modeling semantics for authors and referees

AU - Beven, Keith

AU - Young, Peter

N1 - ©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - This opinion piece makes some suggestions about guidelines for modeling semantics that can be referred to by authors and referees. We discuss descriptions of model structures, different forms of simulation and prediction, descriptions of different sources of uncertainty in modeling practice, the language of model validation, and concepts of predictability and fitness-for-purpose. While not expecting universal agreement on these suggestions, given the loose usage of words in the literature, we hope that the discussion of the issues involved will at least give pause for thought and encourage good practice in model development and applications.Key PointsSemantics of hydrological modelling lack clarity Clarifications for simulation and forecasting and treatment of uncertainty Clarifications for model evaluation and falsification

AB - This opinion piece makes some suggestions about guidelines for modeling semantics that can be referred to by authors and referees. We discuss descriptions of model structures, different forms of simulation and prediction, descriptions of different sources of uncertainty in modeling practice, the language of model validation, and concepts of predictability and fitness-for-purpose. While not expecting universal agreement on these suggestions, given the loose usage of words in the literature, we hope that the discussion of the issues involved will at least give pause for thought and encourage good practice in model development and applications.Key PointsSemantics of hydrological modelling lack clarity Clarifications for simulation and forecasting and treatment of uncertainty Clarifications for model evaluation and falsification

KW - simulation

KW - epistemic uncertainty

KW - aleatory uncertainty

KW - validation

KW - forecasting

KW - falsification

KW - THEORETICAL DERIVATION

KW - HYDROLOGICAL MODELS

KW - UNCERTAINTY

KW - VALIDATION

KW - WATER

KW - FRAMEWORK

KW - VERIFICATION

KW - ASSESSMENTS

KW - EQUATIONS

KW - SCIENCE

U2 - 10.1002/wrcr.20393

DO - 10.1002/wrcr.20393

M3 - Journal article

VL - 49

SP - 5092

EP - 5098

JO - Water Resources Research

JF - Water Resources Research

SN - 0043-1397

IS - 8

ER -