MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408473263 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-10

Enhancing physically based and distributed hydrological model calibration through internal state variable constraints

2025· preprint· en· W4408473263 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frédéric Talbot, Jean‐Daniel Sylvain, Guillaume Drolet, Annie Poulin, Richard Arsenault

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)École de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariable (mathematics)CalibrationState variableState (computer science)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceMathematicsStatisticsPhysicsAlgorithmThermodynamicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrological models often struggle to accurately represent subsurface processes, which are crucial for understanding groundwater dynamics and recharge, particularly in snow-dominated catchments. Traditional calibration methods, primarily focused on streamflow, can produce models that perform well for discharge prediction but inadequately capture internal hydrological processes such as groundwater recharge, baseflow, and soil moisture. This study explores how incorporating internal state variables into the calibration process can improve model realism and better reflect the complex interactions within the hydrological cycle.Using the physically based Water Balance Simulation Model (WaSiM), we implement and compare three model configurations across 34 catchments in southern Quebec, a region characterized by diverse hydrological conditions and significant seasonal snowmelt. The first configuration (Baseline, BL) employs a conventional calibration approach, focusing on streamflow while relying on conceptual methods to simulate groundwater flow. In the second configuration (Groundwater, GW), we enable the groundwater module, which uses physically based equations to model subsurface processes. The third configuration (Groundwater with Recharge Calibration, GW-RC) further refines the model by incorporating groundwater recharge as a constraint in the calibration process.Our results show that while the BL and GW configurations achieve high Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) scores for streamflow predictions, they underperform in representing other critical hydrological processes, such as groundwater recharge and baseflow variability. The GW-RC configuration, despite a modest reduction in streamflow performance, significantly improves the representation of subsurface processes, particularly during snowmelt periods. This enhancement is achieved by including internal state variables such as recharge in the objective function during calibration. As a result, GW-RC offers a more comprehensive understanding of watershed dynamics and provides insights that are crucial for water resource management and climate adaptation strategies.The study highlights the value of multi-variable calibration frameworks, which move beyond streamflow optimization to incorporate additional hydrological data. Such frameworks offer a more accurate depiction of watershed processes, especially in the context of climate change. The GW-RC approach demonstrates that even small adjustments in the calibration process, such as the inclusion of recharge as a constraint, can lead to substantial improvements in model realism without sacrificing overall model stability.The results underscore the importance of developing robust hydrological models capable of simulating both surface and subsurface processes, which are essential for adapting to future hydrological shifts. This study provides a framework for improving hydrological model calibration and offers valuable contributions to the fields of water resource management and climate adaptation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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