MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095113326 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/025201

Effect of precipitation bias correction on water budget calculation in Upper Yellow River, China

2012· article· en· W2095113326 on OpenAlexaff
Baisheng Ye, Daqing Yang, Lijuan Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvapotranspirationSurface runoffPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceWater balanceDrainage basinHydrology (agriculture)Water yearClimate changeClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study quantifies the effect of precipitation bias corrections on basin water balance calculations for the Yellow River Source region (YRS). We analyse long-term (1959–2001) monthly and yearly data of precipitation, runoff, and ERA-40 water budget variables and define a water balance regime. Basin precipitation, evapotranspiration and runoff are high in summer and low in winter. The basin water storage change is positive in summer and negative in winter. Monthly precipitation bias corrections, ranging from 2 to 16 mm, do not significantly alter the pattern of the seasonal water budget. The annual bias correction of precipitation is about 98 mm (19%); this increase leads to the same amount of evapotranspiration increase, since yearly runoff remains unchanged and the long-term storage change is assumed to be zero. Annual runoff and evapotranspiration coefficients change, due to precipitation bias corrections, from 0.33 and 0.67 to 0.28 and 0.72, respectively. These changes will impact the parameterization and calibration of land surface and hydrological models. The bias corrections of precipitation data also improve the relationship between annual precipitation and runoff.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207