Large observational bias on discharge in the Indus River since 1970s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discharge of one of the world's largest river - Indus River was reported to be increasing that was not supported by the Karakoram (KK) glacier expansion. A major hydrometric bias was ignored, which seemed similar to the montage that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear. This study proposed a framework for quantifying the bias resulting from inaccurate data affecting hydrologic studies on the Indus. We constructed a statistical model by converting the rating curves of rivers into air temperature (T) - discharge (Q) curves from an adjacent catchment in China where flow measurement was carried out using a standard method. We found that most flow data for the Indus were much greater than the error limits of T-Q curves estimated by daily data, a greater bias occurred in recent decades when discharge increased, the higher the flow was, the larger the bias was. The estimated mean annual and maximum monthly bias was 22.5% and 210%, respectively. These biases indicated that discharge increase in the Indus probably resulted from the large errors of hydrometrics without a scientific basis. We suggested a montage bias was needed in the hydrologic science of KK's rivers that may strongly affect water resource management.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".