Suitability of North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) output for hydrologic modelling and analysis in mountainous terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Meteorological observations at high elevations in mountainous regions are often lacking. One opportunity to fill this data gap is through the use of downscaled output from weather reanalysis models. In this study, we tested the accuracy of downscaled output from the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) against high‐elevation surface observations at four ridgetop locations in the southern Coast Mountains of British Columbia, Canada. NARR model output was downscaled to the surface observation locations through three‐dimensional interpolation for air temperature, vapour pressure and wind speed and two‐dimensional interpolation for radiation variables. Accuracy was tested at both the 3‐hourly and daily time scales. Air temperature displayed a high level of agreement, especially at the daily scale, with root mean square error (RMSE) values ranging from 0.98 to 1.21 °C across all sites. Vapour pressure downscaling accuracy was also quite high (RMSE of 0.06 to 0.11 hPa) but displayed some site specific bias. Although NARR overestimated wind speed, there were moderate to strong linear relations (r2 from 0.38 to 0.84 for daily means), suggesting that the NARR output could be used as an index and bias‐corrected. NARR output reproduced the seasonal cycle for incoming short‐wave radiation, with Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiencies ranging from 0.78 to 0.87, but accuracy suffered on days with cloud cover, resulting in a positive bias and RMSE ranged from 42 to 46 Wm− 2. Although fewer data were available, incoming long‐wave radiation from NARR had an RMSE of 19 Wm− 2 and outperformed common methods for estimating incoming long‐wave radiation. NARR air temperature showed potential to assist in hydrologic analysis and modelling during an atmospheric river storm event, which are characterized by warm and wet air masses with atypical vertical temperature gradients. The incorporation of a synthetic NARR air temperature station to better represent the higher freezing levels resulted in increased predicted peak flows, which better match the observed run‐off during the event. Copyright © 2016 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".