Modelling streamflow trends for a watershed with limited data: case of the Litani basin, Lebanon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Streamflow variability in the Upper and Lower Litani basin, Lebanon was modelled as there is a lack of long-term measured runoff data. To simulate runoff and streamflow, daily rainfall was derived using a stochastic rainfall generation model and monthly rainfall data. Two distinct synthetic rainfall models were developed based on a two-part probabilistic distribution approach. The rainfall occurrence was described by a Markov chain process, while the rainfall distribution on wet days was represented by two different distributions (i.e. gamma and mixed exponential distributions). Both distributions yielded similar results. The rainfall data were then processed using water balance and routing models to generate daily and monthly streamflow. Compared with measured data, the model results were generally reasonable (mean errors ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 m3/s at select locations). Finally, the simulated monthly streamflow data were used to investigate discharge trends in the Litani basin during the 20th century using the Mann-Kendall and Sen slope nonparametric trend detection methods. A significant drying trend of the basin was detected, reaching a streamflow reduction of 0.8 and 0.7 m3/s per decade in January for the Upper and Lower basin, respectively. Editor D. Koutsoyiannis; Associate editor Sheng Yue Citation Ramadan, H.H., Beighley, R.E., and Ramamurthy, A.S., 2012. Modelling streamflow trends for a watershed with limited data: case of the Litani basin, Lebanon. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 57 (8), 1516–1529.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".