The Use of Reanalyses and Gridded Observations as Weather Input Data for a Hydrological Model: Comparison of Performances of Simulated River Flows Based on the Density of Weather Stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Precipitation forcing is critical for hydrological modeling as it has a strong impact on the accuracy of simulated river flows. In general, precipitation data used in hydrological modeling are provided by weather stations. However, in regions with sparse weather station coverage, the spatial interpolation of the individual weather stations provides a rough approximation of the real precipitation fields. In such regions, precipitation from interpolated weather stations is generally considered unreliable for hydrological modeling. Precipitation estimates from reanalyses could represent an interesting alternative in regions where the weather station density is low. This article compares the performances of river flows simulated by a watershed model using precipitation and temperature estimates from reanalyses and gridded observations. The comparison was carried out based on the density of surface weather stations for 316 Canadian watersheds located in three climatic regions. Three state-of-the-art atmospheric reanalyses—ERA-Interim, CFSR, and MERRA—and one gridded observations database over Canada—Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)—were used. Results showed that the Nash–Sutcliffe values of simulated river flows using precipitation and temperature data from CFSR and NRCan were generally equivalent regardless of the weather station density. ERA-Interim and MERRA performed significantly better than NRCan for watersheds with weather station densities of less than 1 station per 1000 km2 in the mountainous region. Overall, these results indicate that for hydrological modeling in regions with high spatial variability of precipitation such as mountainous regions, reanalyses perform better than gridded observations when the weather station density is low.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".