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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".