Jump to content

Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

26 May 2025

24 March 2025

26 September 2024

22 August 2024

11 February 2024

3 January 2024

17 September 2023

25 August 2023

24 August 2023

18 August 2023

26 July 2023

24 February 2023

22 February 2023

19 February 2023

15 November 2021

  • curprev 21:0421:04, 15 November 2021 207.162.19.113 talk 8,069 bytes 0 According to Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970 and Krause et al., (2005) {Krause P, Boyle DP, Bäse F. 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in Geosciences 5 (5): 89–97 DOI: 10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005} I think that observed Q_o and simulated Q_m were mixed up in the 1st and 3rd formulas. undo

31 December 2020

13 December 2020

8 December 2020

1 December 2020

25 November 2020

19 October 2020

12 October 2020

21 September 2020

2 September 2020

19 May 2020

  • curprev 21:5521:55, 19 May 2020 Jjakenichol talk contribs 5,227 bytes +225 These changes reflect what was actually intended in the suggestion to raise the numerator and denominator to 1. In fact, only raising the denominator to 1 instead of 2, as the article previously stated, is incorrect. Citation is the same paper originally cited by the article for the suggestion: doi=10.1029/1998WR900018 undo

18 October 2019

28 June 2019

24 September 2018

19 September 2018

18 September 2018

12 September 2018

5 April 2018

28 December 2017

11 July 2017

19 June 2017

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)