MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885505824 · doi:10.1002/hyp.13251

Using reanalysis‐driven regional climate model outputs for hydrology modelling

2018· article· en· W2885505824 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jie Chen, François Brissette, Hua Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceClimate modelClimate changeClimatologyScale (ratio)Hydrological modellingMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bias correction methods are usually applied to climate model outputs before using these outputs for hydrological climate change impact studies. However, the use of a bias correction procedure is debatable, due to the lack of physical basis and the bias nonstationarity of climate model outputs between future and historical periods. The direct use of climate model outputs for impact studies has therefore been recommended in a few studies. This study investigates the possibility of using reanalysis‐driven regional climate model (RCM) outputs directly for hydrological modelling by comparing the performance of bias‐corrected and nonbias‐corrected climate simulations in hydrological simulations over 246 watersheds in the Province of Québec, Canada. When using RCM outputs directly, the hydrological model is specifically calibrated using RCM simulations. Two evaluation metrics (Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency [NSE] and transformed root mean square error [TRMSE]) and three hydrological indicators (mean, high, and low flows) are used as criteria for this comparison. Two reanalysis‐driven RCMs with resolutions of 45 km and 15 km are used to investigate the scale effect of climate model simulations and bias correction approaches on hydrology modelling. The results show that nonbias‐corrected simulations perform better than bias‐corrected simulations for the reproduction of the observed streamflows when using NSE and TRMSE as criteria. The nonbias‐corrected simulations are also better than or comparable with the bias‐corrected simulations in terms of reproducing the three hydrological indicators. These results imply that the raw RCM outputs driven by reanalysis can be used directly for hydrological modelling with a specific calibration of hydrological models using these datasets when gauged observations are scarce or unavailable. The nonbias‐corrected simulations (at a minimum) should be provided to end users, along with the bias‐corrected ones, especially for studying the uncertainty of hydrological climate change impacts. This is especially true when using an RCM with a high resolution, since the scale effect is observed when the RCM resolution increases from a 45‐km to a 15‐km scale.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207