MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408436533 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-7194

Assessing the value of meteorological reforecast data to predict inflow volumes over a Canadian snow-dominated catchment using a deep learning model

2025· preprint· en· W4408436533 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. A. Soucy, Richard Arsenault, Jean‐Luc Martel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflowEnvironmental scienceStreamflowHydropowerFlood forecastingComputer scienceProbabilistic forecastingProbabilistic logicFlood mythForecast skillWater resourcesMeteorologyDrainage basinArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrological forecasting is essential across multiple sectors, including hydroelectric power generation, flood prediction and mitigation, and water resource management. In this field of research, Machine Learning (ML) models have shown promising results and are increasingly used to replace traditional hydrological models.This work presents a novel framework for forecasting 14-day inflow volumes to a hydropower reservoir using deep-learning models and atmospheric reforecasts in a Canadian catchment. The forecasting framework investigates whether Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models can directly forecast inflow volumes without relying on intermediate daily streamflow predictions, and whether integrating meteorological reforecast data during training can enhance model performance and forecast quality.Three LSTM models were trained using various combinations of meteorological data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), including ERA5 reanalysis data and probabilistic reforecast datasets. The target hydrological forecast is the 14-day cumulative inflow volume to the reservoir. The first model is trained exclusively with ERA5 data, the second using a combination of ERA5 data and reforecasts, and the third combining the training datasets of the first two models. The models are then used to generate hydrological forecasts using ECMWF ensemble meteorological forecasts and assessed with quantitative metrics such as the Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE), Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS), and Average Bin Distance to Uniformity (ABDU).Results indicate that the three LSTM models can directly predict 14-day cumulative inflow volumes with reasonable accuracy and reliability, yielding strong performance metrics. However, no single model consistently outperforms the others. The model trained solely on reanalysis data exhibits greater variability in its predictions, resulting in lower accuracy but higher reliability. Results also vary seasonally. These findings suggest that incorporating meteorological reforecast data during training offers valuable potential for improving inflow volume forecasts within specific seasons and depends on the desired trade-off between accuracy and reliability.Overall, it can be stated that LSTM models are a promising alternative to current operational models for inflow volume forecasting, although further research is necessary to understand how to fully exploit their potential and ensure their applicability and transferability into an operational context.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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