Comparison of recorded rainfall with quantitative precipitation forecast in a rainfall-runoff simulation for the Langat River Basin, Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Observed rainfall is used for runoff modeling in flood forecasting where possible, however in cases where the response time of the watershed is too short for flood warning activities, a deterministic quantitative precipitation forecast (QPF) can be used. This is based on a limited-area meteorological model and can provide a forecasting horizon in the order of six hours or less. This study applies the results of a previously developed QPF based on a 1D cloud model using hourly NOAA-AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) and GMS (Geostationary Meteorological Satellite) datasets. Rainfall intensity values in the range of 3–12 mm/hr were extracted from these datasets based on the relation between cloud top temperature (CTT), cloud reflectance (CTR) and cloud height (CTH) using defined thresholds. The QPF, prepared for the rainstorm event of 27 September to 8 October 2000 was tested for rainfall runoff on the Langat River Basin, Malaysia, using a suitable NAM rainfall-runoff model. The response of the basin both to the rainfall-runoff simulation using the QPF estimate and the recorded observed rainfall is compared here, based on their corresponding discharge hydrographs. The comparison of the QPF and recorded rainfall showed R2 = 0.9028 for the entire basin. The runoff hydrograph for the recorded rainfall in the Kajang sub-catchment showed R2 = 0.9263 between the observed and the simulated, while that of the QPF rainfall was R2 = 0.819. This similarity in runoff suggests there is a high level of accuracy shown in the improved QPF, and that significant improvement of flood forecasting can be achieved through ‘Nowcasting’, thus increasing the response time for flood early warnings.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".