A statistical approach for identifying factors governing streamflow recession behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Catchment storage‐release relation has been widely studied using the parameters of streamflow recession analysis. The governing factors of the recession parameters are poorly understood, particularly in snow‐dominated regions. Here, we tailor a newly developed statistical approach, marginal contribution feature importance, to a hydrologic context, and couple it with random forests, in order to investigate the governing physical and climatic factors of catchment recession behaviour. The coupled approach can incorporate the interactions among catchment climatic and physical attributes. In a large sample hydrology study, we identify and compare the governing factors of recession parameters, in rainfall versus snowmelt‐dominated catchments, and in medium‐size versus large catchments, across more than 1000 catchments in United States and Canada. Results show that streamflow recession behaviour, particularly recession nonlinearity, strongly depend on belowground attributes and slope in rain‐dominated medium size catchments, and strongly depend on slope and annual maximum snow water equivalent in snow‐dominated medium size catchments. As catchment scale increases (>1000 km2), the attributes related to the magnitude and timing of input water (e.g., water surplus, aridity index, maximum snow water equivalent) dictates the streamflow recession behaviour and the importance of belowground attributes is dropped. Furthermore, recession nonlinearity generally increases with an increase in catchment size. The findings of this study help improve our understanding of the governing factors and the interpretation of the spatial variability of recession behaviours. Such understanding could inform the development of a generalizable process‐based framework for estimating the sensitivity of catchment storage‐release relation to climate change in different environmental settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".