Assessing River Low-Flow Uncertainties Related to Hydrological Model Calibration and Structure under Climate Change Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-flow is the flow of water in a river during prolonged dry weather. This paper investigated the uncertainty originating from hydrological model calibration and structure in low-flow simulations under climate change conditions. Two hydrological models of contrasting complexity, GR4J and SWAT, were applied to four sub-watersheds of the Yamaska River, Canada. The two models were calibrated using seven different objective functions including the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient (NSEQ) and six other objective functions more related to low flows. The uncertainty in the model parameters was evaluated using a PARAmeter SOLutions procedure (PARASOL). Twelve climate projections from different combinations of General Circulation Models (GCMs) and Regional Circulation Models (RCMs) were used to simulate low-flow indices in a reference (1970–2000) and future (2040–2070) horizon. Results indicate that the NSEQ objective function does not properly represent low-flow indices for either model. The NSE objective function applied to the log of the flows shows the lowest total variance for all sub-watersheds. In addition, these hydrological models should be used with care for low-flow studies, since they both show some inconsistent results. The uncertainty is higher for SWAT than for GR4J. With GR4J, the uncertainties in the simulations for the 7Q2 index (the 7-day low-flow value with a 2-year return period) are lower for the future period than for the reference period. This can be explained by the analysis of hydrological processes. In the future horizon, a significant worsening of low-flow conditions was projected.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".