Assessment of monthly to daily streamflow disaggregation methods: A case study of the Nile River Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nile River Basin The lack of observed streamflow data at a short time scale poses a critical challenge for calibrating and validating hydrologic models. Therefore, many disaggregation methods were developed, resulting in various relative performances without a clear indication of the optimal choice. This study aims to iteratively assess eight monthly to daily streamflow disaggregation methods at 21 major subbasin outlets in the Nile River Basin (NRB) to identify the best-performing ones. These methods include one proportionality method and seven interpolation methods, i.e., linear, 2nd-order spline, 3rd-order spline, Piecewise Cubic Hermite Interpolating Polynomial (Pchip), Modified Akima (MAkima), mean preserved 2nd-order spline, and mean preserved 3rd-order spline. We assessed these methods using three metrics and visual investigations. The results showed that the interpolation methods performed well, better than the proportionality method. However, their performances decreased at stations with high daily streamflow fluctuations. The interpolation methods’ performances were similar in mimicking the daily values but significantly different in preserving the mass balance. The mean preserving 3rd-order interpolation method (Lai 22) was the best in preserving the mass balance and capturing the low, moderate and high flows and, therefore, selected to generate the daily flow data in the NRB. The results of this study can guide a reliable method for obtaining daily streamflow data, which is important for the hydrologic and water management studies in the NRB. • Disaggregated monthly to daily streamflow data at 14 Nile Basin stations. • Investigated seven interpolation methods and one proportionality method. • Interpolation methods performed better than the proportionality method. • Mean-preserving 3rd-order spline method showed the overall best results. • Further research is needed to better mimic highly fluctuating flow data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".