Evaluation of Radar Quantitative Precipitation Estimates (QPEs) as an Input of Hydrological Models for Hydrometeorological Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Weather radar provides real-time, spatially distributed precipitation estimates, whereas traditional gauge data are restricted in space. The use of radar quantitative precipitation estimates (QPEs) as an input of hydrological models for hydrometeorological applications has increased with the development of weather radar worldwide. New dual-polarization technology and algorithms are showing improvements to radar QPEs. This study evaluates radar QPEs from C-band radar at King City, Canada (WKR), and NEXRAD S-band radar at Buffalo, New York (KBUF), to verify the reliability and accuracy for operational use in the Humber River (semiurban) and Don River (urban) watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Canada. Twenty rainfall events that occurred from 2011 to 2017 were determined from hourly gauge measurements and compared with nine radar QPEs. Rain rates were estimated with different algorithms using three dual-polarized reflectivity values: horizontal reflectivity Z, differential reflectivity ZDR, and specific differential phase KDP. The correlation coefficient, bias, detection, and root-mean-square error were calculated and averaged over all events for each gauge station to show the spatial distribution and in a similar pattern to represent the variation by the event. The quality of the results in terms of accuracy and reliability indicates that the radar QPEs from KBUF S-band and WKR C-band multiparameter rain rate estimators can be effectively used as precipitation forcing of hydrological models for hydrometeorological applications. The high spatiotemporal resolution, long-term data archive, and good percent detection of radar QPEs can facilitate hydrometeorological applications by providing a continuous time series for hydrological models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".