A High‐Resolution, Daily Hindcast (1990–2021) of Alaskan River Discharge and Temperature From Coupled and Optimized Physical Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Water quality and freshwater ecosystems are affected by river discharge and temperature. Models are frequently used to estimate river temperature on large spatial and temporal scales due to limited observations of discharge and temperature. In this study, we use physically based river routing and temperature models to simulate daily discharge and river temperature for rivers in 138 basins in Alaska, including the entire Yukon River basin, from 1990–2021. The river temperature model was optimized for ice free months using a surrogate‐based model optimization method, improving model performance at uncalibrated river gages. A common statistical model relating local air and water temperature was used as a benchmark. The physically based river temperature model exhibited superior performance compared to the benchmark statistical model after optimization, suggesting river temperature model optimization could become more routine. The river temperature model demonstrated high sensitivity to air temperature and model parameterization, and lower sensitivity to discharge. Validation of the models showed a Kling‐Gupta Efficiency of 0.46 for daily river discharge and a root mean square error of 2.04°C for daily river temperature, improving on the non‐optimized physical model and the benchmark statistical model, which had root mean square errors of 3.24 and 2.97°C, respectively. The simulation shows that rivers in northern Alaska have higher maximum summer temperatures and more variability than rivers in the Central and Southern regions. Furthermore, this framework can be readily adapted for use across models and regions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".