Predicting the Net Basin Supply to the Great Lakes with a Hydrometeorological Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paper presents the incremental improvement of the prediction of the Great Lakes net basin supply (NBS) with the hydrometeorological model Modélisation Environmentale–Surface et Hydrologie (MESH) by increasing the accuracy of the simulated NBS components (overlake precipitation, lake evaporation, and runoff into the lake). This was achieved through a series of experiments with MESH and its parent numerical weather prediction model [the Canadian Global Environmental Multiscale model in its regional configuration (GEM Regional)]. With forcing extracted from operational GEM Regional forecasts, MESH underestimated the NBS in fall and winter. The underestimation increased when the GEM precipitation was replaced with its corrected version provided by the Canadian Precipitation Analysis. This pointed to overestimated lake evaporation and prompted the revision of the parameterization of the surface turbulent fluxes over water used both in MESH and GEM. The revised parameterization was validated against turbulent fluxes measured at a point on Lake Superior. Its use in MESH reduced the lake evaporation and largely corrected the NBS underestimation. However, the Lake Superior NBS became overestimated, signaling an inconsistency between the reduced lake evaporation and the prescribed precipitation. To remove the inconsistency, a new forcing dataset (including precipitation) was generated with the GEM model using the revised flux parameterization. A major NBS simulation improvement was obtained with the new atmospheric forcing reflecting the atmospheric response to the modified surface fluxes over the lakes. Additional improvements resulted by correcting the runoff with a modified snowmelt rate and by insertion of observed streamflows. The study shows that accurate lake evaporation simulation is crucial for accurate NBS prediction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".