MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150698464 · doi:10.5194/hess-17-1635-2013

Multi-variable evaluation of hydrological model predictions for a headwater basin in the Canadian Rocky Mountains

2013· article· en· W2150698464 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xing Fang, John W. Pomeroy, C. R. Ellis, Matthew K. MacDonald, C. M. DeBeer, Thomas A. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersBiogeoscience Institute, University of CalgaryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)SnowStreamflowDigital elevation modelPermafrostElevation (ballistics)PrecipitationStructural basinDrainage basinPhysical geographyGeologyGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. One of the purposes of the Cold Regions Hydrological Modelling platform (CRHM) is to diagnose inadequacies in the understanding of the hydrological cycle and its simulation. A physically based hydrological model including a full suite of snow and cold regions hydrology processes as well as warm season, hillslope and groundwater hydrology was developed in CRHM for application in the Marmot Creek Research Basin (~ 9.4 km2), located in the Front Ranges of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Parameters were selected from digital elevation model, forest, soil, and geological maps, and from the results of many cold regions hydrology studies in the region and elsewhere. Non-calibrated simulations were conducted for six hydrological years during the period 2005–2011 and were compared with detailed field observations of several hydrological cycle components. The results showed good model performance for snow accumulation and snowmelt compared to the field observations for four seasons during the period 2007–2011, with a small bias and normalised root mean square difference (NRMSD) ranging from 40 to 42% for the subalpine conifer forests and from 31 to 67% for the alpine tundra and treeline larch forest environments. Overestimation or underestimation of the peak SWE ranged from 1.6 to 29%. Simulations matched well with the observed unfrozen moisture fluctuation in the top soil layer at a lodgepole pine site during the period 2006–2011, with a NRMSD ranging from 17 to 39%, but with consistent overestimation of 7 to 34%. Evaluations of seasonal streamflow during the period 2006–2011 revealed that the model generally predicted well compared to observations at the basin scale, with a NRMSD of 60% and small model bias (1%), while at the sub-basin scale NRMSDs were larger, ranging from 72 to 76%, though overestimation or underestimation for the cumulative seasonal discharge was within 29%. Timing of discharge was better predicted at the Marmot Creek basin outlet, having a Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 0.58 compared to the outlets of the sub-basins where NSE ranged from 0.2 to 0.28. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of 0.15 and 0.17 for comparisons between the simulated groundwater storage and observed groundwater level fluctuation at two wells indicate weak but positive correlations. The model results are encouraging for uncalibrated prediction and indicate research priorities to improve simulations of snow accumulation at treeline, groundwater dynamics, and small-scale runoff generation processes in this environment. The study shows that improved hydrological cycle model prediction can be derived from improved hydrological understanding and therefore is a model that can be applied for prediction in ungauged basins.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations130
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207