A Database of Natural Monthly Streamflow Estimates from 1950 to 2015 for the Conterminous United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantifying and understanding the natural streamflow regime, defined as expected streamflow that would occur in the absence of anthropogenic modification to the hydrologic system, is critically important for the development of management strategies aimed at protecting aquatic ecosystems. Water balance models have been applied frequently to estimate natural flows, but are limited in the number of predictor variables that can be included. Here, a statistical machine learning technique — random forest modeling — was applied to estimate natural flows at a monthly time‐step from 1950 to 2015 for >2.5 million stream reaches in the conterminous United States (U.S.) using 200 potential predictor variables. We describe the development and documentation of this dataset and assess model performance. Model fit statistics (mean Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency = 0.85; observed/expected ratio = 0.94) indicate good correspondence between predicted and observed flows at nearly 2,000 streamgages. As an example application of the dataset, the observed streamflow record at a site prior to and after the construction of an upstream reservoir was compared with estimated natural flows to demonstrate the magnitude of seasonal depletions in streamflow due to the reservoir. This dataset can be applied to quantify natural and anthropogenic processes contributing to streamflow depletion or augmentation, and assess associated ecological effects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".