Evaluation of four hydrological models for operational flood forecasting in a Canadian Prairie watershed
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexities of the Prairie watersheds, including potholes, drainage interconnectivities, changing land-use patterns, dynamic watershed boundaries and hydro-meteorological factors, have made hydrological modelling on Prairie watersheds one of the most complex task for hydrologists and operational hydrological forecasters. In this study, four hydrological models (WATFLOOD, HBV-EC, HSPF and HEC-HMS) were developed, calibrated and tested for their efficiency and accuracy to be used as operational flood forecasting tools. The Upper Assiniboine River, which flows into the Shellmouth Reservoir, Canada, was selected for the analysis. The performance of the models was evaluated by the standard statistical methods: the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient, correlation coefficient, root mean squared error, mean absolute relative error and deviation of runoff volumes. The models were evaluated on their accuracy in simulating the observed runoff for calibration and verification periods (2005–2015 and 1994–2004, respectively) and also their use in operational forecasting of the 2016 and 2017 runoff.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it