MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Hydrological Model Calibration Strategy for Climate Change Impact Studies

2021· article· en· W4200178738 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationEnvironmental scienceHydrometeorologyClimate changeHydrological modellingClimatologyHydrographStreamflowWater resourcesClimate modelMeteorologyHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyDrainage basinPrecipitationGeologyStatisticsGeographyMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess the impacts of climate change on water resources, hydrological models are the most commonly used to simulate future flows. Hydrological model calibration is typically based on historical hydrometeorological data, which may not be representative of the future climate. This paper evaluates various calibration strategies to minimize this issue. The impact of these calibration strategies is measured on 921 North American catchments using a lumped hydrological model. Five calibration strategies (warm, low rainfall, high rainfall, low-flow, and high-flow years) were investigated, each using a 5-year (noncontinuous) independent validation dataset maximizing all five studied climate anomalies. The remaining years were used as a pool of calibration years, using targeted subsets of years in multiples of five to assess the impact of the number of calibration years versus the climate anomaly of each calibration subset. Results showed large cross-catchment variability, indicating that no single calibration strategy and number of calibration years were optimal for all watersheds. However, the large number of catchments used in this study allows for some general conclusions to be drawn. For the warm-years calibration strategy, using a large number of years was the approach most likely to succeed, indicating that removing a small subset of cold years was preferable to keeping a small subset of warm years. For the other four calibration strategies, the approach most likely to succeed was the one in which about half of the years in the historical record were kept. For the warm year strategy, keeping a larger number of years for calibration ensures better model robustness to account for precipitation variability in the validation set. For the other four calibration strategies, which are mostly related to precipitation, a larger number of years had to be dropped to account for the much larger differences between wet and dry years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it