Full Coupling Between the Atmosphere, Surface, and Subsurface for Integrated Hydrologic Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An ever increasing community of earth system modelers is incorporating new physical processes into numerical models. This trend is facilitated by advancements in computational resources, improvements in simulation skill, and the desire to build numerical simulators that represent the water cycle with greater fidelity. In this quest to develop a state‐of‐the‐art water cycle model, we coupled HydroGeoSphere (HGS), a 3‐D control‐volume finite element surface and variably saturated subsurface flow model that includes evapotranspiration processes, to the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model, a 3‐D finite difference nonhydrostatic mesoscale atmospheric model. The two‐way coupled model, referred to as HGS‐WRF, exchanges the actual evapotranspiration fluxes and soil saturations calculated by HGS to WRF; conversely, the potential evapotranspiration and precipitation fluxes from WRF are passed to HGS. The flexible HGS‐WRF coupling method allows for unique meshes used by each model, while maintaining mass and energy conservation between the domains. Furthermore, the HGS‐WRF coupling implements a subtime stepping algorithm to minimize computational expense. As a demonstration of HGS‐WRF's capabilities, we applied it to the California Basin and found a strong connection between the depth to the groundwater table and the latent heat fluxes across the land surface.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".