MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400134189 · doi:10.1029/2023wr035213

High Spatial Resolution in Total Water Storage Variations Inferred From GPS: Case Study in the Great Lakes Watershed, US

2024· article· en· W4400134189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shuo Zheng, Zizhan Zhang, Bridget R. Scanlon, Haoming Yan, Alexander Y. Sun, Ashraf Rateb, Yan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemEnvironmental scienceWatershedInversion (geology)AmplitudeGroundwaterWater storageGeodesyRemote sensingGeologyGeomorphologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Assessing spatiotemporal water storage variability in the Great Lakes Watershed (GLW) is critical given its transboundary status impacting both Canada and the United States. Here, we apply a novel inversion strategy to global positioning system (GPS) vertical movements to achieve high spatial resolution total water storage (TWS) variations in GLW through improved processing. The steps are composed of removing load changes driven by the lake water fluctuation by forward modeling, isolating the Great Lakes grids to solve the ill‐conditioned problem in inversion, and inverting the GPS residual series to estimate TWS variations on land (TWS GPS ). The results show that the regional dense continuous GPS observation network can successfully resolve TWS on land at monthly timescales with 30–45 km spatial resolution. We also could effectively capture fine‐scale TWS features than GRACE/GFO mascon products. GRACE/GFO satellites largely underestimate seasonal and long‐term TWS spatial fluctuations, but their temporal patterns coincide with those from GPS. The average annual amplitude of TWS GPS on land reaches 82.0 mm, greatly exceeding estimates from GRACE/GFO (∼48.0 mm) and composite hydrological model outputs (∼62.0 mm). The seasonal groundwater fluctuations inferred from GPS have peak‐to‐peak amplitudes of ∼40 km 3 with the maximum around September. This coincides with that from GRACE/GFO. However, the magnitudes and phases of groundwater storage from GPS vary markedly among the subbasins in GLW, and the different snow and soil moisture amounts measured in each subbasin cause discrepancies among these GPS estimates. This study shows the value of GPS data in spatially downscaling GRACE/GFO data and providing high‐resolution output at spatiotemporal scales with low latency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207