Finding the most appropriate precipitation probability distribution for stochastic weather generation and hydrological modelling in Nordic watersheds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Six precipitation probability distributions (exponential, Gamma, Weibull, skewed normal, mixed exponential and hybrid exponential/Pareto distributions) are evaluated on their ability to reproduce the statistics of the original observed time series. Each probability distribution is also indirectly assessed by looking at its ability to reproduce key hydrological variables after being used as inputs to a lumped hydrological model. Data from 24 weather stations and two watersheds (Chute‐du‐Diable and Yamaska watersheds) in the province of Quebec (Canada) were used for this assessment. Various indices or statistics, such as the mean, variance, frequency distribution and extreme values are used to quantify the performance in simulating the precipitation and discharge. Performance in reproducing key statistics of the precipitation time series is well correlated to the number of parameters of the distribution function, and the three‐parameter precipitation models outperform the other models, with the mixed exponential distribution being the best at simulating daily precipitation. The advantage of using more complex precipitation distributions is not as clear‐cut when the simulated time series are used to drive a hydrological model. Although the advantage of using functions with more parameters is not nearly as obvious, the mixed exponential distribution appears nonetheless as the best candidate for hydrological modelling. The implications of choosing a distribution function with respect to hydrological modelling and climate change impact studies are also discussed. Copyright © 2012 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".