MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2947218305 · doi:10.1029/2019gl083342

Analytical Propagation of Runoff Uncertainty Into Discharge Uncertainty Through a Large River Network

2019· article· en· W2947218305 on OpenAlexaff
Cédric H. David, Jonathan Hobbs, M. Turmon, Charlotte Emery, J. T. Reager, J. S. Famiglietti

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSurface runoffDischargeEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Propagation of uncertaintyCovarianceRouting (electronic design automation)MeteorologyStatisticsGeologyDrainage basinMathematicsComputer scienceGeographyGeotechnical engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The transport of freshwater from continents to oceans through rivers has traditionally been estimated by routing runoff from land surface models within river models to obtain discharge. This paradigm imposes that errors are transferred from runoff to discharge, yet the analytical propagation of uncertainty from runoff to discharge has never been derived. Here we apply statistics to the continuity equation within a river network to derive two equations that propagate the mean and variance/covariance of runoff errors independently. We validate these equations in a case study of the rivers in the western United States and, for the first time, invert observed discharge errors for spatially distributed runoff errors. Our results suggest that the largest discharge error source is the joint variability of runoff errors across space, not the mean or amplitude of individual errors. Our findings significantly advance the science of error quantification in model‐based estimates of river discharge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→