MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402858462 · doi:10.1002/hyp.10795

Suitability of North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) output for hydrologic modelling and analysis in mountainous terrain

2016· article· en· W2402858462 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joel W. Trubilowicz, J. M. Shea, G. Jost, R. D. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationMitacsCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMean squared errorTerrainElevation (ballistics)DownscalingClimatologyWind speedMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyStatisticsGeographyPrecipitationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 ( r 2 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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207