Development of Flow Forecasting Models in the Bow River at Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
River flow forecasting is critical for flood forecasting, reservoir operations, and water resources management. However, flow forecasting can be difficult, challenging and time consuming due to the spatial and temporal variability of climatic conditions and watershed characteristics. From a practical point of view, a simple and intuitive approach might be more preferable than a complex modeling approach. In this study, our objective was to develop short-term (i.e., daily) flow forecasting models in the Bow River at the city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Here, we evaluated the performance of several regression models, along with a newly proposed “base difference” model, by using antecedent daily river flow values from three gauge stations (i.e., Banff, Seebe, and Calgary). Our analyses revealed that using a multivariable linear regression formulated as a function of upstream gauge stations (i.e., Banff or Seebe) and the station of interest (i.e., Calgary) using antecedent flows demonstrated strong relationships (i.e., having r2 (coefficient of determination) and RMSE (root-mean-square deviation) of approximately 0.93 and 14 m3/s, respectively). As such, we opted to suggest that the use of Banff and Calgary stations in forecasting the flows at Calgary could be considered as it would require a relatively lower number of gauge stations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".