Improving Runoff Prediction Accuracy in a Mountainous Watershed Using a Remote Sensing-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the limited number and sparse distribution of meteorological and hydrometric stations in most watersheds, the runoff estimation based on these stations may not be accurate. However, the accurate determination of the Antecedent Soil Moisture (ASM) in watersheds can improve the accuracy of runoff forecasting. The objective of this study is to utilize the ASM derived from satellite imagery to enhance the accuracy of runoff estimation in a mountainous watershed. In this study, a range of Remote Sensing (RS) data, including surface biophysical and topographic features, climate data, hydrometric station flow data, and a ground-based measured SM database for the Balikhli-Chay watershed in Iran, were utilized. The Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) method was employed to estimate runoff. Two approaches were used for estimating the ASM: (1) using the precipitation data recorded in ground stations, and (2) using the SM data obtained from satellite images. The accuracy of runoff estimation was then calculated for these two scenarios and compared. The mean Nash–Sutcliffe statistic was found to be 0.63 in the first scenario and 0.74 in the second scenario. The inclusion of ASM derived from the satellite imagery in the precipitation–runoff model resulted in a 51% increase in the accuracy of runoff estimation compared to using precipitation data recorded in ground stations. These findings have significant implications for improving the accuracy of ASM and runoff modeling in various applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".