On doing hydrology with dragons: Realizing the value of perceptual models and knowledge accumulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our ability to fully and reliably observe and simulate the terrestrial hydrologic cycle is limited, and in‐depth experimental studies cover only a tiny fraction of our landscape. On medieval maps, unexplored regions were shown as images of dragons—displaying a fear of the unknown. With time, cartographers dared to leave such areas blank, thus inviting explorations of what lay beyond the edge of current knowledge. In hydrology, we are still in a phase where maps of variables more likely contain hydrologic dragons than blank areas, which would acknowledge a lack of knowledge. In which regions is our ability to extrapolate well developed, and where is it poor? Where are available data sets informative, and where are they just poor approximations of likely system properties? How do we best identify and acknowledge these gaps to better understand and reduce the uncertainty in characterizing hydrologic systems? The accumulation of knowledge has been postulated as a fundamental mark of scientific advancement. In hydrology, we lack an effective strategy for knowledge accumulation as a community, and insufficiently focus on highlighting knowledge gaps where they exist. We propose two strategies to rectify these deficiencies. Firstly, the use of open and shared perceptual models to develop, debate, and test hypotheses. Secondly, improved knowledge accumulation in hydrology through a stronger focus on knowledge extraction and integration from available peer‐reviewed articles. The latter should include metadata to tag journal articles complemented by a common hydro‐meteorological database that would enable searching, organizing and analyzing previous studies in a hydrologically meaningful manner. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Methods
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 | 0.020 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".