Employing higher density lower reliability weather data from the Global Historical Climatology Network monitors to generate serially complete weather data for watershed modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrological models require complete and accurate weather data time series to represent watershed‐scale responses adequately. The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is the most comprehensive weather database used in hydrological modelling studies globally. Since higher‐density, lower‐reliability precipitation measurements from private citizens collected by the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow (CoCoRaHS) network data were integrated into the GHCN, hydrological modellers in the United States have access to a much greater amount of weather data. However, the benefit of using CoCoRaHS data has not been assessed. The objectives of this work were to develop a method for generating a complete weather data time series based on the combination of data from multiple GHCN monitors and to assess several methods for the estimation of missing weather data. Weather data from GHCN monitors located within a specific radius of a watershed were obtained and interpolated using three estimation methods (Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW), Inverse Distance and Elevation Weighting (IDEW) and Closest Station), creating a seamless time series of weather observations. To evaluate the performance of the methodologies, weather data obtained from each estimation method was used to force the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and Thornthwaite‐Mather models for 21 US Department of Agriculture‐Conservation Effects Assessment Project watersheds in different climate regions to simulate daily streamflow for 2010–2021. Except for three watersheds, all of the SWAT models had Nash‐Sutcliffe Efficiency above 0.5, the ratio of the root mean square error to the standard deviation of observations below 0.7, and percent bias from −25% to 25% with a satisfactory performance rating. IDEW and IDW performed similarly, and the Closest Station method resulted in the poorest streamflow simulation. A comparison with published SWAT model results further corroborated improved model performance using novel combined GHCN data with all Closest Station, IDW and IDEW methods.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".