MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1898919587 · doi:10.1002/hyp.10236

Inter‐comparison of high‐resolution gridded climate data sets and their implication on hydrological model simulation over the Athabasca Watershed, Canada

2014· article· en· W1898919587 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityImpactUniversity of VictoriaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWatershedPrecipitationHydrological modellingClimate modelClimatologyDrainage basinForcing (mathematics)StreamflowClimate changeStructural basinHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several different gridded climate data sets have recently been made available with the purpose of providing a consistent set of climatic data for many hydro‐climatic studies. Recent advances in land‐surface schemes and their implementation in fully distributed processes‐based hydrologic models have demanded even higher‐resolution gridded data. It remains, however, a challenge to identify the most reliable gridded climate data for hydrologic modelling, especially in mountainous headwater regions where there is significant spatial variability but few observing stations. Moreover, the accuracy of such climate forcing data applied to alpine headwaters directly affects the modelled hydrologic responses of the lower, downstream portions of river basins. This study evaluates the spatial and temporal differences in precipitation and temperature fields among three high‐resolution climate data sets available in Canada, namely, the North American Regional Reanalysis, the Canadian Precipitation Analysis and the thin‐plate smoothing splines (ANUSPLIN). Inter‐comparison of the quality of these data sets was undertaken for the Athabasca River basin in western Canada. The hydrologic responses of this watershed with respect to each of the three gridded climate data sets were also evaluated using the Variable Infiltration Capacity model. Results indicate that the data sets have systematic differences, which vary with regional characteristics – the largest differences being for mountainous regions. The hydrologic model simulations corresponding to those three forcing data sets also show significant differences and more with North American Regional Reanalysis than those between Canadian Precipitation Analysis and ANUSPLIN. © 2014 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Hydrological Processes © 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.235 · 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