MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783117955 · doi:10.3390/w10010058

Application of ENSO and Drought Indices for Water Level Reconstruction and Prediction: A Case Study in the Lower Mekong River Estuary

2018· article· en· W2783117955 on OpenAlexaff
Hok Sum Fok, Qing He, Kwok Pan Chun, Zhiwei Zhou, Thuan Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEl Niño Southern OscillationEstuaryEnvironmental scienceWater levelWater balanceClimatologyWater contentHydrology (agriculture)Mekong riverGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water level monitoring is important for understanding the global hydrological cycle. Remotely-sensed indices that capture localized instantaneous responses have been extensively explored for water level reconstruction during the past two decades. However, the potential usage of the Palmer’s Drought Severity Index (PDSI) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indices for water level reconstruction and prediction has not been explored. This paper examines the relationship between observed water level and PDSI based on a soil-moisture water balance model and three ENSO indices for the lower Mekong River estuary on a monthly temporal scale. We found that the time-lagged information between the standardized water level and the ENSO indices that enabled us to reconstruct the water level using the ENSO indices. The influence of strong ENSO events on the water level can help capture the hydrological extremes during the period. As a result, PDSI-based water level reconstruction can be further improved with the assistance of ENSO information (called ENSO-assisted PDSI) during ENSO events. The water level reconstructed from the PDSI and ENSO indices (and that of remote sensing) compared to observed water level shows a correlation coefficient of around 0.95 (and <0.90), with an RMS error ranging from 0.23 to 0.42 m (and 0.40 to 0.79 m) and an NSE around 0.90 (and <0.81), respectively. An external assessment also displayed similar results. This indicates that the usage of ENSO information could lead to a potential improvement in water level reconstruction and prediction for river basins affected by the ENSO phenomenon and hydrological extremes.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207