Assessment of Hydrologic Data Estimates From <scp>ERA5</scp> Reanalyses in Benin, West Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In West Africa, the validation of distributed models is limited by the quality and availability of point station data measured in situ. ERA5 is a climate reanalysis product produced by the European Centre for Medium‐range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and is suggested to overcome this constraint. This study assessed and compared the quality of ERA5 and its variant ERA5‐Land (namely, LAND) over Benin at spatial and monthly time scales. ERA5 relies on a single‐level version with a 0.25° × 0.25° resolution, while LAND is a land surface version with a 0.1° × 0.1° resolution. Four variables were collected, namely, surface runoff (SRO), evapotranspiration (PET), water table depth (WTD) and soil water content (SWC). Single nearest pixel (SNP) and inverse distance weighting (IDW) selection methods were used to compare the reanalyse data to point station data based on the correlation (c), mean absolute error (MAE) and relative mean absolute error (RMAE). With the SNP method, both reanalyses showed a best peak simulation in mean SRO. Their performance in terms of correlation ranged from 0.26 to 0.65 for ERA5 vs. 0.34 to 0.60 for LAND. The reanalyses showed high correlations (generally > 0.80) for SWC and for the PET (sometime greater than 0.90). The correlations were below 0.5 in both reanalyses for the WTD, with slight overestimations (4.73 m for ERA5 vs. 3.13 m for LAND). Similar results were reported with the IDW selection method. One or the other of the two reanalyses can be recommended for model calibration/validation, but care must be taken in the choice because the one chosen may be better in terms of correlation even though it has significant biases and vice versa. Correcting the variables of these reanalysis datasets could also improve their performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".