Evaluating the Uncertainty of Terrestrial Water Budget Components Over High Mountain Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the uncertainties in terrestrial water budget estimation over High Mountain Asia (HMA) using a suite of uncoupled land surface model (LSM) simulations. The uncertainty in the water balance components of precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET), runoff (Q), and terrestrial water storage (TWS) is significantly impacted by the uncertainty in the driving meteorology, with precipitation being the most important boundary condition. Ten gridded precipitation datasets along with a mix of model-, satellite-, and gauge-based products, are evaluated first to assess their suitability for LSM simulations over HMA. The datasets are evaluated by quantifying the systematic and random errors of these products as well as the temporal consistency of their trends. Though the broader spatial patterns of precipitation are generally well captured by the datasets, they differ significantly in their means and trends. In general, precipitation datasets that incorporate information from gauges are found to have higher accuracy with low Root Mean Square Errors and high correlation coefficient values. An ensemble of LSM simulations with a selected subset of precipitation products is then used to produce estimates of terrestrial water budget components and their associated uncertainties. The mean annual estimates of the surface mass (water) balance components from this model ensemble are comparable to global estimates from prior studies, whereas the uncertainty/spread of P, ET, and Q is significantly larger than the corresponding estimates from global studies. A comparison of evapotranspiration, snow cover fraction, and changes in terrestrial water storage estimates against remote sensing-based reference datasets confirms the significant role of the input meteorology in influencing the water budget characterization over HMA and points to the need for improving meteorological inputs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".