Multimodel evaluation of twenty lumped hydrological models under contrasted climate conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper investigates the temporal transposability of hydrological models under contrasted climate conditions and evaluates the added value of using an ensemble of model structures for flow simulation. This is achieved by applying the Differential Split Sample Test procedure to twenty lumped conceptual models on a catchment in the Province of Québec (Canada) and another one in the State of Bavaria (Germany). First, a calibration/validation procedure was applied on four historical non-continuous periods with contrasted climate conditions. Then, model efficiency was quantified individually (for each model) and collectively (for the model ensemble). The individual analysis evaluated model performance and robustness. The ensemble investigation, based on the average of simulated discharges, focused on the twenty-member ensemble and all possible model subsets. Results showed that using a single model may provide hazardous results when the model is to be applied in contrasted conditions. Overall, some models turned out as a good compromise in terms of performance and robustness, but generally not as much as the twenty-model ensemble. Model subsets offered yet improved performance over the twenty-model ensemble, but at the expanse of spatial transposability (i.e. need of site-specific analysis).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".