Using the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis as weather input data for watershed models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Obtaining representative meteorological data for watershed‐scale hydrological modelling can be difficult and time consuming. Land‐based weather stations do not always adequately represent the weather occurring over a watershed, because they can be far from the watershed of interest and can have gaps in their data series, or recent data are not available. This study presents a method for using the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) global meteorological dataset to obtain historical weather data and demonstrates the application to modelling five watersheds representing different hydroclimate regimes. CFSR data are available globally for each hour since 1979 at a 38‐km resolution. Results show that utilizing the CFSR precipitation and temperature data to force a watershed model provides stream discharge simulations that are as good as or better than models forced using traditional weather gauging stations, especially when stations are more than 10 km from the watershed. These results further demonstrate that adding CFSR data to the suite of watershed modelling tools provides new opportunities for meeting the challenges of modelling un‐gauged watersheds and advancing real‐time hydrological modelling. Copyright © 2013 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".