MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379053415 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129747

Estimating streamflow permanence with the watershed Erosion Prediction Project Model: Implications for surface water presence modeling and data collection

2023· article· en· W4379053415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Konrad Hafen, Kyle W. Blasch, Paul E. Gessler, Jason B. Dunham, Erin Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWillamette National ForestU.S. Geological SurveyOregon State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStreamflowEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)WatershedSTREAMSDrainage basinGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many data collection efforts and modeling studies have focused on providing accurate estimates of streamflow while fewer efforts have sought to identify when and where surface water is present and the duration of surface water presence in stream channels, hereafter referred to as streamflow permanence. While physically-based hydrological models are frequently used to explore how water quantity may be influenced by various climatic and basin characteristics at local, regional, national, and global extents they are less often used to explore streamflow permanence. Herein, the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) hydrological model is applied to watersheds in the humid H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest (HJA) and watersheds of the arid Willow and Whitehorse creeks (WW), both in Oregon, to simulate daily (WW) and annual (HJA and WW) streamflow permanence. One thousand parameter combinations were tested to calibrate WEPP to observed streamflow in the HJA watersheds and one hundred parameter combinations were tested to calibrate WEPP to observed surface water presence time series data in WW watersheds. When calibrated to observed streamflow, WEPP correctly classified annual streamflow permanence for 83 % of HJA stream reaches. In the WW, WEPP simulations correctly classified 63–93 % of daily streamflow permanence observations and 59–87 % of annual streamflow permanence classifications. Inclusion of a dry-day threshold (the maximum number of days a stream reach could be modeled ‘dry’ but still classified as permanent for the year) improved annual accuracy in three WW watersheds from 2 to 10 %. Parameter sets that produced the best daily accuracies in WW resulted in poor annual accuracies. Results highlight the importance of evaluating physically-based streamflow permanence models on both permanent and nonpermanent streams at daily and annual time scales to ensure evaluation metrics are appropriate for interpretation purposes. Additionally, results suggest that strategic collection of surface water presence observations and streamflow observations may support robust calibration of physically based models to simulate streamflow permanence moving forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrologySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207