Reasonable agreements and mismatches between land-surface-water-area estimates based on a global river model and Landsat data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land surface water is a key component of the global water cycle. Compared to remote sensing by satellites, both temporal extension and spatial continuity is superior in modeling of water surface area. However, overall evaluation of models representing different kinds of surface waters at the global scale is lacking. We estimated land surface water area (LSWA) using the Catchment-based Macro-scale Floodplain model (CaMa-Flood), a global hydrodynamic model, and compared the estimates to Landsat with 3″ spatial resolution at the global scale. Results show that the two methodologies show agreement in the general spatial patterns of LSWA (e.g., major rivers and lakes, open-to-sky floodplains), but globally consistent mismatches were found under several land surface conditions. CaMa-Flood underestimates LSWA in high northern latitudes (e.g., the Canadian Shield) and coastal areas, as the presence of isolated lakes in local depressions or small coastal rivers is not considered by the model’s physical assumptions. In contrast, model-estimated LSWA is larger than Landsat estimates in forest-covered areas (e.g., Amazon basin) due to the opacity of vegetation for optical satellite sensing, and in cropland areas due to the lack of dynamic water processes (e.g., re-infiltration, evaporation, water consumption) and constraints of water infrastructure (e.g., canals, levees). These globally consistent differences can be reasonably explained by the model’s physical assumptions or optical satellite sensing characteristics, and applying filters (e.g., floodplain topography mask, forest and cropland mask) to the two datasets allows the remaining local-scale discrepancies to be attributed to locally varying factors (e.g., channel parameters, atmospheric forcing).
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".