Multi-model averaging for continuous streamflow prediction in ungauged basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper assesses the possibility of using multi-model averaging techniques for continuous streamflow prediction in ungauged basins. Three hydrological models were calibrated on the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency metric and were used as members of four multi-model averaging schemes. Model weights were estimated through optimization on the donor catchments. The averaging methods were tested on 267 catchments in the province of Québec, Canada, in a leave-one-out cross-validation approach. It was found that the best hydrological model was practically always better than the others used individually or in a multi-model framework, thus no averaging scheme performed statistically better than the best single member. It was also found that the robustness and adaptability of the models were highly influential on the models’ performance in cross-verification. The results show that multi-model averaging techniques are not necessarily suited for regionalization applications, and that models selected in such studies must be chosen carefully to be as robust as possible on the study site.Editor M.C. Acreman; Associate editor S. Grimaldi
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".