Prediction of snowmelt derived streamflow in a wetland dominated prairie basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The Cold Regions Hydrological Modelling platform (CRHM) was used to create a prairie hydrological model for Smith Creek Research Basin (~400 km2), east-central Saskatchewan, Canada. Physically based modules were sequentially linked in CRHM to simulate snow processes, frozen soils, variable contributing area and wetland storage and runoff generation. Five "representative basins" (RBs) were defined and each was divided into seven hydrological response units (HRUs): fallow, stubble, grassland, river channel, open water, woodland, and wetland. Model parameters were estimated using field survey data, LiDAR digital elevation model (DEM), SPOT 5 satellite imageries, stream network and wetland inventory GIS data. Model simulations were conducted for 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. No calibration was performed. The model performance in predicting snowpack, soil moisture and streamflow was evaluated against field observations. Root mean square differences (RMSD) between simulation and observations ranged from 1.7 to 25.2 mm and from 4.3 to 22.4 mm for the simulated snow accumulation in 2007/2008 and 2008/2009, respectively, with higher RMSD in grassland, river channel, and open water HRUs. Spring volumetric soil moisture was reasonably predicted compared to a point observation in a grassland area, with RMSD of 0.011 and 0.009 for 2008 and 2009 simulations, respectively. The model was able to capture the timing and magnitude of peak spring basin discharge, but it underestimated the cumulative volume of basin discharge by 32% and 56% in spring 2008 and 2009, respectively. The results suggest prediction of Canadian Prairie basin snow hydrology is possible with no calibration if physically based models are used with physically meaningful model parameters that are derived from high resolution geospatial data.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".