Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of numerical experiments were conducted to test the connection between streamflow hydrographs at the outlet of large watersheds and the time series of hillslope-scale runoff yield. We used a distributed hydrological routing model that discretizes a large watershed ( ∼ 17 000 km 2 ) into small hillslope units ( ∼ 0.1 km 2 ) and applied distinct surface runoff time series to each unit that deliver the same volume of water into the river network. The numerical simulations show that distinct runoff delivery time series at the hillslope scale result in indistinguishable streamflow hydrographs at large scales. This limitation is imposed by space-time averaging of input flows into the river network that are draining the landscape. The results of the simulations presented in this paper show that, under very general conditions of streamflow routing (i.e., nonlinear variable velocities in space and time), the streamflow hydrographs at the outlet of basins with Horton–Strahler (H–S) order 5 or above (larger than 100 km 2 in our setup) contain very little information about the temporal variability of runoff production at the hillslope scale and therefore the processes from which they originate. In addition, our results indicate that the rate of convergence to a common hydrograph shape at larger scales (above H–S order 5) is directly proportional to how different the input signals are to each other at the hillslope scale. We conclude that the ability of a hydrological model to replicate outlet hydrographs does not imply that a correct and meaningful description of small-scale rainfall–runoff processes has been provided. Furthermore, our results provide context for other studies that demonstrate how the physics of runoff generation cannot be inferred from output signals in commonly used hydrological models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.154 | 0.120 |
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".