MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509500453 · doi:10.1002/hyp.10214

Hydrological model uncertainty due to precipitation‐phase partitioning methods

2014· article· en· W1509500453 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSnowPrecipitationWater cycleStreamflowRange (aeronautics)HydrometeorologyUncertainty analysisHumidityEmpirical modellingClimatologyMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesDrainage basinComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsGeologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Precipitation‐phase partitioning methods (PPMs) that are used in simulating cold‐region hydrological processes vary significantly. Typically, PPMs are based on empirical algorithms that are driven by readily available near‐surface air temperature but ignore the physical processes controlling precipitation phase by not incorporating humidity. Because these lack any physical basis, there is uncertainty in their spatial and temporal transferability. Recently, humidity‐based methods that have a stronger physical basis and smaller uncertainty have been developed. To quantify the uncertainty that empirical PPMs introduce into hydrological simulations, a cold‐region hydrological modelling platform was used with a physically based PPM and a selection of empirical PPMs to calculate a set of snow regime and streamflow regime indices. The empirical PPMs included a single air temperature threshold and a double air temperature threshold, whereas the physically based PPM used a psychrometric energy balance model. All calculations were run with near‐surface meteorological observations that typically drive hydrological models. Intercomparison of the hydrological responses to the PPMs highlighted substantial differences between the wide range of responses to empirical algorithms and the very small uncertainty due to physically based methods. Uncertainty of hydrological processes, quantified by simulating over a range of air temperature thresholds, reached 20% for the rainfall fraction, 0.4 mm/day for basin discharge, 160 mm of peak snow water equivalent, 36 days for hydrological uncertainty snow cover duration, 26 days for snow‐free date and 10 days for peak discharge date. The implication of this research is that the reduced uncertainty derived from implementing physically based PPMs, for operational or research purposes, are greatest for snowpack prediction in mountain basins. However for streamflow discharge calculations, the reduced uncertainty was greatest in prairie and alpine basins due to the additional effects of precipitation phase calculations on frozen soil infiltration and summer snowmelt processes respectively. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.263 · 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