MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402201851 · doi:10.5194/hess-2024-221

Technical note: What does the Standardized Streamflow Index actually reflect? Insights and implications for hydrological drought analysis

2024· preprint· en· W4402201851 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fabián Lema, Pablo A. Mendoza, Nicolás Vasquéz, Naoki Mizukami, Mauricio Zambrano‐Bigiarini, Ximena Vargas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondo de Financiamiento de Centros de Investigación en Áreas PrioritariasFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloGovernment of Canada
KeywordsStreamflowIndex (typography)ClimatologyEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)GeographyComputer scienceGeologyCartographyDrainage basinGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Hydrological drought is one of the main hydroclimatic hazards worldwide, affecting water availability, ecosystems and socioeconomic activities. This phenomenon is commonly characterized by the Standardized Streamflow Index (SSI), which is widely used because of its straightforward formulation and calculation. Nevertheless, there is limited understanding of what the SSI actually reveals about how climate anomalies propagate through the terrestrial water cycle. To find possible explanations, we implemented the SUMMA hydrological model coupled with the mizuRoute routing model in six hydroclimatically different case study basins located on the western slopes of the extratropical Andes, and examined correlations between the SSI (computed from the models for 1, 3 and 6-month time scales) and potential explanatory variables – including precipitation and simulated catchment-scale storages – aggregated at different time scales. Additionally, we analyzed the impacts of adopting commonly used time scales on propagation analyses of specific drought events – from meteorological to soil moisture and hydrological drought – with focus on their duration and intensity. The results reveal that the choice of time scale for the SSI has larger effects on correlations with explanatory variables in rainfall-dominated regimes compared to snowmelt-driven basins, especially when simulated fluxes and storages are aggregated to time scales longer than 9 months. In all the basins analyzed, the strongest relationships (Spearman rank correlation values over 0.7) were obtained when using 6-month aggregations to compute the SSI and 9–12 months to compute the explanatory variables, excepting aquifer storage in snowmelt-driven basins. Finally, the results show that the trajectories of drought propagation obtained with the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI), the Standardized Soil Moisture Index (SSMI) and the SSI may change drastically with the selection of time scale. Overall, this study highlights the need for caution when selecting standardized drought indices and associated time scales, since their choice impacts event characterizations, monitoring and propagation analyses.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→