Improved modelling of a Prairie catchment using a progressive two-stage calibration strategy with in situ soil moisture and streamflow data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dynamic contributing areas, various fill-and-spill mechanisms and cold-region processes make the hydrological modelling of the Prairies very challenging. Several models (from simple conceptual to advanced process-based) are available, but the focus has been largely in reproducing streamflow. Few studies have assimilated soil moisture and other hydrological fluxes for improved simulation, but the emphasis has been predominately on simulating contributing areas. However, previous research has shown that the contributing areas are dynamic, and can vary from one year to the next, depending on hydro-meteorological conditions. Therefore, the areas deemed non-contributing can also occasionally contribute to streamflow. In this study, we introduce a progressive two-stage calibration strategy to constrain soil moisture in non-contributing areas. We demonstrate that constraining soil moisture in non-contributing areas can result in improved hydrological simulations and more realistic process representations. The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) values for simulated soil moisture in contributing areas increased by 68% at 20 cm and 25% at 50 cm soil depths during validation when non-contributing areas were constrained. This further led to increases in NSE values in streamflow simulation during calibration (6%) and validation (12%). Our findings suggest that soil moisture in non-contributing areas should be properly constrained for improved modelling of Prairie catchments.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it