MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410057878 · doi:10.1029/2024gl114185

A First Look at River Discharge Estimation From SWOT Satellite Observations

2025· article· en· W4410057878 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantinos M. Andreadis, Stephen Coss, Michael Durand, Colin J. Gleason, Travis Simmons, Nikki Tebaldi, David M. Bjerklie, Craig Brinkerhoff, Robert W. Dudley, Igor Gejadze, Kévin Larnier, Pierre‐Olivier Malaterre, Hind Oubanas, George H. Allen, Paul Bates, Cédric H. David, Alessio Domeneghetti, Omid Elmi, Luciana Fenoglio-Marc, Renato Prata de Moraes Frasson, Elisa Friedmann, Pierre‐André Garambois, Jaclyn Gehring, Augusto Getirana, Marissa Hughes, Jonghyun Lee, Pascal Matte, J. Toby Minear, Jérôme Monnier, Aggrey Muhebwa, Mohammad J. Tourian, Tamlin M. Pavelsky, Ryan Riggs, Ernesto Rodríguez, Md. Safat Sikder, L. C. Smith, C. M. Stuurman, Jay Taneja, Angelica Tarpanelli, Jida Wang, Brent A. Williams, Bidhyananda Yadav

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of Technology
KeywordsSWOT analysisSatelliteEstimationEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyDischargeRemote sensingGeologyGeographyCartographyBusinessEngineeringAerospace engineeringDrainage basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite has the potential to transform global hydrologic science by offering simultaneous and synoptic estimates of river discharge and other hydraulic variables. Discharge is estimated from SWOT observations of water surface elevation, width, and slope. A first assessment using just the highest quality SWOT measurements, over the first 15 months (March 2023–July 2024) of the mission evaluated at 65 gauged reaches shows results consistent with pre‐launch expectations. SWOT estimates track discharge dynamics without relying on any gauge information: median correlation is 0.73, with a correlation interquartile range of 0.51–0.89. SWOT estimates capture discharge magnitude correctly in some cases but are biased (median bias is 50%) in others. There are already a total of 11,274 ungauged global locations with highest quality SWOT measurements where SWOT discharge is expected to accurately track discharge variations: this value will increase as SWOT data record length grows, algorithms are refined and SWOT measurements are reprocessed. This first look indicates that SWOT discharge is performing as expected for SWOT data that achieve performance requirements, providing observed information on discharge variations in ungauged basins globally.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207