Spatial-Temporal Evaluation of Satellite-Derived Rainfall Estimations for Water Resources Applications in the Upper Congo River Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Satellite rainfall estimates are robust alternatives to gauge precipitation, especially in Africa, where several watersheds and regional water basins are poorly gauged or ungauged. In this study, six satellite precipitation products: the Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation with Stations (CHIRPS); Tropical Applications of Meteorology Using Satellite and Ground-based Observations (TAMSAT); Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM); and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s new Integrated Multi-Satellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) early run (IMERG-ER), late run (IMERG-LR) and final run (IMERG-FR) are used to force a gauge-calibrated Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model for the Congo River Basin, Central Africa. In this study, the National Centers for Environmental Prediction's Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) calibrated version of the SWAT was used as the benchmark/reference while scenario versions will be created as configurations using each satellite product identified above. CFSR was used as an independent sample, to prevent bias towards any of the satellite products. The calibrated CFSR model captured and reproduced the hydrology (timing, peak flow & seasonality) of this basin using the average monthly discharge from Jan,1984- Dec,1991. Furthermore, the results show that TRMM, IMERG-FR, and CHIRPS captured the peak flows and correctly reproduced the seasonality and timing of the monthly discharges (Jan 2007- Dec 2010). In contrast, TAMSAT, IMERG-ER, and IMERG-LR overestimated the peak flows. These results show that some of these precipitation products must be bias corrected before being used for practical applications. The results of this study will be significant in integrated water resources management in the Congo River Basin and other regional river basins in Africa. Most important, the results obtained from this study has been hosted in a repository for free access to all interested in hydrology and water resources management in Africa
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".