Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 358

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards an alternative blueprint for a physically based digitally simulated hydrologic response modelling system

Open access
Beven, Keith·2002·Hydrological Processes

Abstract

A critique of the Freeze and Harlan blueprint for a distributed physically based hydrological model leads to the conclusion that it will be abandoned. An alternative blueprint as a modelling methodology is proposed that explicitly recognises the potential for equifinality in scale‐dependent model representations. An inductive rather than deductive definition of physically‐based is proposed that reflects the important role of observables in constraining the feasible models. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hyp.343

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 358

Metadata

Authors
Beven, K.
Venue
Hydrological Processes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-01-22
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
189-206
ISSN
  • 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1085
OpenAlex
W2017461955
Cited by
358
References
2
FWCI
35.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.