Nonparametric catchment clustering using the data depth function
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clustering of catchments is important for prediction in ungauged basins, model parameterization and watershed development and management. The aim of this study is to explore a new measure of similarity among catchments, using a data depth function and comparing it with catchment clustering indices based on flow and physical characteristics. A cluster analysis was performed for each similarity measure using the affinity propagation clustering algorithm. We evaluated the similarity measure based on depth–depth plots (DD-plots) as a basis for transferring parameter sets of a hydrological model between catchments. A case study was developed with 21 catchments in a diverse New Zealand region. Results show that clustering based on the depth–depth measure is dissimilar to clustering on catchment characteristics, flow, or flow indices. A hydrological model was calibrated for the 21 catchments and the transferability of model parameters among similar catchments was tested within and between clusters defined by each clustering method. The mean model performance for parameters transferred within a group always outperformed those from outside the group. The DD-plot based method was found to produce the best in-group performance and second-highest difference between in-group and out-group performance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it