Continuous streamflow prediction in ungauged basins: The effects of equifinality and parameter set selection on uncertainty in regionalization approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper focuses on evaluating the uncertainty of three common regionalization methods for predicting continuous streamflow in ungauged basins. A set of 268 basins covering 1.6 million km 2 in the province of Quebec was used to test the regionalization strategies. The multiple linear regression, spatial proximity, and physical similarity approaches were evaluated on the catchments using a leave‐one‐out cross‐validation scheme. The lumped conceptual HSAMI hydrological model was used throughout the study. A bootstrapping method was chosen to further estimate uncertainty due to parameter set selection for each of the parameter set/regionalization method pairs. Results show that parameter set selection can play an important role in regionalization method performance depending on the regionalization methods (and their variants) used and that equifinality does not contribute significantly to the overall uncertainty witnessed throughout the regionalization methods applications. Regression methods fail to consistently assign behavioral parameter sets to the pseudoungauged basins (i.e., the ones left out). Spatial proximity and physical similarity score better, the latter being the best. It is also shown that combining either physical similarity or spatial proximity with the multiple linear regression method can lead to an even more successful prediction rate. However, even the best methods were shown to be unreliable to an extent, as successful prediction rates never surpass 75%. Finally, this paper shows that the selection of catchment descriptors is crucial to the regionalization strategies' performance and that for the HSAMI model, the optimal number of donor catchments for transferred parameter sets lies between four and seven.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".