MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982083114 · doi:10.3390/w11112201

Identification of Hydrological Models for Enhanced Ensemble Reservoir Inflow Forecasting in a Large Complex Prairie Watershed

2019· article· en· W2982083114 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Frezer Seid Awol, Paulin Coulibaly, Ioannis K. Tsanis, Fisaha Unduche

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsManitoba HydroMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuantitative precipitation forecastEnsemble forecastingInflowEnvironmental scienceFlood forecastingHindcastLead timeCopula (linguistics)QuantileComputer scienceHydrological modellingBenchmark (surveying)PrecipitationMeteorologyForecast skillForecast verificationWatershedFlood mythClimatologyEconometricsMachine learningMathematicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate and reliable flow forecasting in complex Canadian prairie watersheds has been one of the major challenges faced by hydrologists. In an attempt to improve the accuracy and reliability of a reservoir inflow forecast, this study investigates structurally different hydrological models along with ensemble precipitation forecasts to identify the most skillful and reliable model. The key goal is to assess whether short- and medium-range ensemble flood forecasting in large complex basins can be accurately achieved by simple conceptual lumped models (e.g., SACSMA with SNOW17 and MACHBV with SNOW17) or it requires a medium level distributed model (e.g., WATFLOOD) or an advanced macroscale land-surface based model (VIC coupled with routing module (RVIC)). Eleven (11)-member precipitation forecasts from second-generation Global Ensemble Forecast System reforecast (GEFSv2) were used as inputs. Each of the ensemble members was bias-corrected by Empirical Quantile Mapping method using the Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) as a training/verification dataset. Forecast evaluation is performed for 1-day up to 8-days forecast lead times in a 6-month hindcast period. Results indicate that bias-correcting precipitation forecasts using verifying datasets (such as CaPA) for a training period of at least two years before the forecast time, produces skillful ensemble hydrological forecasts. A comparison of models in forecast mode shows that the two lumped models (SACSMA and MACHBV) can provide better overall forecast performance than the benchmark WATFLOOD and the macroscale Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model. However, for shorter lead-times, particularly up to day 3, the benchmark distributed model provides competitive reliability, as compared to the lumped models. In general, the SACSMA model provided better forecast quality, reliability and differentiation skill than other considered models at all lead times.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207