Hydrological model uncertainty due to precipitation‐phase partitioning methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".