Should Bouchet's hypothesis be taken into account in rainfall‐runoff modelling? An assessment over 308 catchments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An implementation of the complementary relationship hypothesis (Bouchet's hypothesis) for estimating regional evapotranspiration within two rainfall‐runoff models is proposed and evaluated in terms of streamflow simulation efficiency over a large sample of 308 catchments located in Australia, France and the USA. Complementary relationship models are attractive approaches to estimating actual evapotranspiration because they rely solely on climatic variables. They are even more interesting since they are supported by a conceptual description underlying the interactions between the evapotranspirating surface and the atmospheric boundary layer, which was highlighted by Bouchet (1963). However, these approaches appear to be in contradiction with the methods prevailing in rainfall‐runoff models, which compute actual evapotranspiration using soil moisture accounting procedures. The approach adopted in this article is to introduce the estimation of actual evapotranspiration provided by complementary relationship models (complementary relationship for areal evapotranspiration and advection aridity) into two rainfall‐runoff models. Results show that directly using the complementary relationship approach to estimate actual evapotranspiration does not give better results than the soil moisture accounting procedures. Finally, we discuss feedback mechanisms between potential evapotranspiration and soil water availability, and their possible impact on rainfall‐runoff modelling. Copyright © 2005 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".