Constraining Remote River Discharge Estimation Using Reach‐Scale Geomorphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent advances in remote sensing and the upcoming launch of the joint NASA/CNES/CSA/UKSA Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite point toward improved river discharge estimates in ungauged basins. Existing discharge methods rely on “prior river knowledge” to infer parameters not directly measured from space. Here, we show that discharge estimation is improved by classifying and parameterizing rivers based on their unique geomorphology and hydraulics. Using over 370,000 in situ hydraulic observations as training data, we test unsupervised learning and an “expert” method to assign these hydraulics and geomorphology to rivers via remote sensing. This intervention, along with updates to model physics, constitutes a new method we term “geoBAM,” an update of the Bayesian At‐many‐stations hydraulic geometry‐Manning's (BAM) algorithm. We tested geoBAM on Landsat imagery over more than 7,500 rivers (108 are gauged) in Canada's Mackenzie River basin and on simulated hydraulic data for 19 rivers that mimic SWOT observations without measurement error. geoBAM yielded considerable improvement over BAM, improving the median Nash‐Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) for the Mackenzie River from −0.05 to 0.26 and from 0.16 to 0.46 for the SWOT rivers. Further, NSE improved by at least 0.10 in 78/108 gauged Mackenzie rivers and 8/19 SWOT rivers. We attribute geoBAM improvement to parameterizing rivers by type rather than globally, but prediction accuracy worsens if parameters are misassigned. This method is easily mapped to rivers at the global scale and paves the way for improving future discharge estimates, especially when coupled with hydrologic 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".