MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393377146 · doi:10.1029/2023wr035785

Leveraging Next‐Generation Satellite Remote Sensing‐Based Snow Data to Improve Seasonal Water Supply Predictions in a Practical Machine Learning‐Driven River Forecast System

2024· article· en· W4393377146 on OpenAlexaff
Sean W. Fleming, Karl Rittger, Catalina M. Oaida Taglialatela, Indrani Graczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJet Propulsion Laboratory
KeywordsSnowRemote sensingSatelliteEnvironmental scienceWater supplyMeteorologyComputer scienceClimatologyEngineeringGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seasonal predictions of spring‐summer river flow volume (water supply forecasts, WSFs) are foundational to western US water management. We test a new space‐based remote sensing product, spatially and temporally complete (STC) MODSCAG fractional snow‐covered area (fSCA), as input for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) operational US West‐wide WSF system. fSCA data were considered alongside traditional SNOTEL predictors, in both statistical and AI‐based NRCS operational hydrologic models, throughout the forecast season, in four test watersheds (Walker, Wind, Piedra, and Gila Rivers in California, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico). Outcomes from over 200 WSF models suggest fSCA‐enabled accuracy gains are most consistent and explainable for short‐lead, late‐season forecasts (roughly 10%–25% improvements, typically), which in operational practice can be challenging as snowlines rise above in situ measurement sites. Gains are roughly proportional to how thoroughly spring‐summer runoff is dominated by snowmelt, and how poorly in situ networks monitor late‐season snowpack. fSCA also improved accuracy for long‐lead, early‐season forecasts, which are similarly problematic in WSF practice, but not for WSFs issued around the time of peak snow accumulation, when in situ measurements reasonably characterize mountain snowpack available for upcoming spring‐summer snowmelt. The AI‐based hydrologic model generally outperformed the statistical model and, in some cases, better‐capitalized on satellite remote sensing. Additionally, preliminary analyses suggest reasonable WSF skill in many cases using fSCA as the sole predictor, potentially useful in sparsely monitored regions; and that combining satellite and in situ products in data‐driven hydrologic models using genetic algorithm‐based predictor selection could help guide new SNOTEL site selection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207