Forcing the Penman-Montheith Formulation with Humidity, Radiation, and Wind Speed Taken from Reanalyses, for Hydrologic Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration (ET0) formulation was forced with humidity, radiation, and wind speed (HRW) fields simulated by four reanalyses in order to simulate hydrologic processes over six mid-sized nivo-pluvial watersheds in southern Quebec, Canada. The resulting simulated hydrologic response is comparable to an empirical ET0 formulation based exclusively on air temperature. However, Penman-Montheith provides a sounder representation of the existing relations between evapotranspiration fluctuations and climate drivers. Correcting HRW fields significantly improves the hydrologic bias over the pluvial period (June to November). The latter did not translate into an increase of the hydrologic performance according to the Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) metric. The suggested approach allows for the implementation of physically-based ET0 formulations where HRW observations are insufficient for the calibration and validation of hydrologic models and a potential reinforcement of the confidence affecting the projection of low flow regimes and water availability.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".