Using national hydrologic models to obtain regional climate change impacts on streamflow basins with unrepresented processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is increasingly impacting water availability. National-scale hydrologic models simulate streamflow resulting from many important processes, but often without processes such as human water use and management activities. This work explores and tests methods to account for such omitted processes using one national-scale hydrologic model. Two bias correction methods, Flow Duration Curve (FDC) and Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), are tested on streamflow simulated by the US Geological Survey National Hydrologic Model (NHM-PRMS), which omits irrigation pumping. A semi-arid agricultural case study is used. FDC and ARIMA perform better for correcting low and high flows, respectively. A hybrid method performs well at both low and high flows; typical Nash-Sutcliffe values increased from <-1.00 to about 0.75. Results suggest methods with which national-scale hydrologic models can be bias-corrected for omitted processes to improve regional streamflow estimates. Utility of these correction methods in simulation of future projections is discussed. • Bias correction methods improve streamflow results from National Hydrologic Model. • FDC and ARIMA methods perform better in low flows and high flows respectively. • Hybrid FDC-ARIMA increased NSE values from <-1 to 0.75 in human-dominated region.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".