Conditioning a Hydrologic Model Using Patterns of Remotely Sensed Land Surface Temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrologic models are usually calibrated using observed river runoff at catchment outlets. Streamflow, however, represents an integral response of the entire catchment and is observed at a few locations worldwide. Parameter estimation based on streamflow has the disadvantage that it does not consider the spatiotemporal variability of hydrologic states and fluxes such as evapotranspiration. Remotely sensed data, in contrast, include these variabilities and are broadly available. In this study, we assess the predictive skill of satellite‐derived land surface temperature (Ts) with respect to river runoff (Q). We developed a bias‐insensitive pattern‐matching criterion to focus the parameter optimization on spatial patterns of Ts. The proposed method is extensively tested in six distinct large German river basins and cross validated in 222 additional basins in Germany. We conclude that land surface temperature calibration outperforms random drawn parameter sets, which could be meaningful for calibrating hydrologic models in ungauged locations. A combined calibration with Q and Ts reduces the root mean squared error in the predicted evapotranspiration by 8% compared to flux tower observations but reduces the NSEs of the streamflow predictions by 6% on average for the six large basins. Our results show that patterns of Ts better constrain model parameters when considered in a calibration next to Q, which finally reduces parametric uncertainty.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".