MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907684684 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.035

Value of distributed water level and soil moisture data in the evaluation of a distributed hydrological model: Application to the PUMMA model in the Mercier catchment (6.6 km2) in France

2019· article· en· W2907684684 on OpenAlexafffund
Musandji Fuamba, Flora Branger, Isabelle Braud, Essoyéké Batchabani, Pedro Sanzana, Benoît Sarrazin, S. Jankowfsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersAgence Nationale de la RecherchePolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceDrainage basinDistributed element modelWater contentHydrological modellingCatchment hydrologySoil scienceGeologyGeographyCartographyClimatologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper emphasizes the importance of integrating outlet discharge and observed internal variables in the evaluation of distributed hydrological models outputs. It proposes a general methodology for a diagnostic evaluation of a complex distributed hydrological model, based on discharge data at the outlet and additional distributed information such as water level and surface soil moisture data. The proposed methodology is illustrated using the PUMMA model in the Mercier sub-catchment (6.6 km2). Model parameters are specified according to field data and a previous study performed in a neighbouring catchment (Jankowfsky et al., 2014), without calibration. The distributed water level and soil moisture network of sensors were useful in the model evaluation process. Thus, model parameters are specified either using in situ information or results from previous studies. A stepwise approach is used for model evaluation. It includes standard water balance assessment as well as comparison of observed and simulated outlet discharge, whether on annual or event timescales. Soil moisture sensors are used to assess the ability of the model to simulate seasonal water storage dynamics based on a normalized index. The water level sensors network is used on two timescales: on a seasonal timescale, sensors network is used to assess the model’s ability to simulate intermittency; whereas on event timescales, sensors network is used in determining the model’s ability to reproduce observed reaction as well as response times. Event timescales do also focus on the correlation between hydrological response and either rainfall event or antecedent soil moisture variables. Results show that the non-calibrated model is quite effective at capturing water flow and soil water-storage dynamics, but it fails to reproduce observed runoff volume during events. There is strong indication of a deficiency in the characterization of catchment storage and upstream flowpath description. The soil water content and a network of water level sensors provide interesting information about soil moisture and river flow dynamics. They however fail to provide quantitative information about catchment storage. This study opens interesting perspectives for the evaluation of distributed hydrological models using hydrological signatures. Furthermore, it highlights the requirement of quantitative as well as qualitative signatures for improving such models.

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)0.006
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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrologySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207