Validation of hydrological models for climate scenario simulation: the case of Saguenay watershed in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents the results of an investigation into the problems associated with using downscaled meteorological data for hydrological simulations of climate scenarios. The influence of both the hydrological models and the meteorological inputs driving these models on climate scenario simulation studies are investigated. A regression‐based statistical tool (SDSM) is used to downscale the daily precipitation and temperature data based on climate predictors derived from the Canadian global climate model (CGCM1), and two types of hydrological model, namely the physically based watershed model WatFlood and the lumped‐conceptual modelling system HBV‐96, are used to simulate the flow regimes in the major rivers of the Saguenay watershed in Quebec. The models are validated with meteorological inputs from both the historical records and the statistically downscaled outputs. Although the two hydrological models demonstrated satisfactory performances in simulating stream flows in most of the rivers when provided with historic precipitation and temperature records, both performed less well and responded differently when provided with downscaled precipitation and temperature data. By demonstrating the problems in accurately simulating river flows based on downscaled data for the current climate, we discuss the difficulties associated with downscaling and hydrological models used in estimating the possible hydrological impact of climate change scenarios. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".