Modeling Water Yield: Assessing the Role of Site and Region-Specific Attributes in Determining Model Performance of the InVEST Seasonal Water Yield Model
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
Simple hydrological models, such as the Seasonal Water Yield Model developed by the Natural Capital Project (InVEST SWYM), are attractive as data requirements are relatively easy to satisfy. However, simple models may produce unrealistic results when the underlying hydrological processes are inadequately described. We used the variation in performance of the InVEST SWYM across watersheds to identify correlates of poorly modeled outcomes of InVEST SWYM. We grouped 749 watersheds from across North America into five bioclimatic regions using nine environmental variables. For each region, we compared the predicted flow patterns to actual flow conditions over a 15-year period. The correlation between the modeled and actual flows was highly dispersed and relatively poor, with 92% of r2 values less than 0.5 and 42% less than 0.1. We linked cryospheric variables to model performance in the bioclimatic region with the poorest model performance (the Low elevation Boreal Sub-humid region—LeBSh). After incorporating cryospheric conditions into the InVEST SWYM, predictions improved significantly in 30% of the LeBSh watersheds. We provide a relatively straightforward approach for identifying processes that simple hydrological models may not consider or which need further attention or refinement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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