MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408430646 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-14097

Unified Guidelines for Drought Condition Monitoring in Local Dams and Rivers in South Korea

2025· preprint· en· W4408430646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tae‐Woong Kim, Min Ji Kim, Joo Heon Lee, Hyun‐Han Kwon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyWater resource managementEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningPhysical geographyClimatologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drought assessment is a critical component of water resource management, ensuring the stability of water supplies and minimizing the impacts of droughts. Focusing on percentile-based criteria and available water supply duration, the United States Drought Monitor (USDM) employs a five-tiered drought assessment ranging from abnormally dry conditions (D0) to exceptional drought (D4), with percentiles delineating each stage. Camrose City in Canada monitors drought conditions in four stages: watch, warning, critical, and emergency based on the number of days water can be supplied to the population. These monitoring schemes highlight the importance of hydrological and statistical data in identifying drought conditions and guiding proactive responses.Considering the practices of drought monitoring in Building on these international practices, this study proposes a unified guideline for drought condition monitoring schemes for dams and rivers in South Korea. The guideline incorporates percentile thresholds (30%, 20%, 10%, 5%) for indicators such as reservoir storage rates and river levels. For reservoir management, thresholds are set based on water availability durations (90, 60, 30, 20 days).The drought monitoring guideline is further validated using two methods for a testbed, the Dongbok Dam; the supply-based criteria defined thresholds as 25.6-17.1-8.5-5.7 million m³ for reservoir volume and 28-19-9-6% for reservoir rates. Alternatively, the percentile-based method yielded thresholds of 52.8-44.2-32.3-25.4%. The Pyeongchang River was selected as a representative case for rivers where supply-based criteria are inapplicable. The 10-day percentile-based criteria showed higher thresholds during the flood season (April–September) and lower thresholds during the non-flood season (October–February).This research emphasizes integrating global best practices into localized drought monitoring systems. By adopting standardized and scientifically robust methods, water resource managers can improve resilience against droughts and ensure sustainable water availability for future generations.Acknowledgment: This work was supported by the 2023-2024 K-water through research on improving dam operation strategies to respond to drought, funded by the Korea Ministry of Environment(MOE)(grant number).

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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