MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410773773 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133589

What can be expected from a semi-distributed multi-model approach for streamflow forecasting? Tailoring the structure and size of a super-ensemble on the Rhône basin

2025· article· en· W4410773773 on OpenAlexaff
Cyril Thébault, Charles Perrin, Sébastien Legrand, Vazken Andréassian, Guillaume Thirel, Olivier Delaigue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCenter for Neuroscience ResearchEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather ForecastsInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'EnvironnementInstitut National de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'AgricultureCompagnie Nationale du Rhône
KeywordsStreamflowStructural basinFlood forecastingGeologyEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyDrainage basinGeomorphologyGeographyCartographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Using a super-ensemble improves streamflow forecasting regardless of the lead time. • We developed dynamic and static combination approaches to reduce the size of the super-ensemble. • Reducing super-ensemble complexity with these methods does not impair the forecast. • Semi-distribution brings no benefit compared with the lumped approach on average over our test sample. Streamflow forecasting is useful for various purposes, from ensuring the safety of populations during floods to managing hydraulic structures. The aim of this work is to combine two hydrological modelling approaches widely used in streamflow forecasting in order to define their benefits and limits in a probabilistic framework: the multi-model approach (which accounts for structural and parametric model uncertainty) and the semi-distributed approach (which considers explicitly the spatial variability of precipitation and hydrological processes). The study focuses on 12 tributaries of the Rhône River, which were modelled using 39 hydrological model configurations. Tests were carried out at an hourly time step for lead times ranging from 1 h to 120 h, considering ensemble meteorological forecasts. The results show that explicitly considering uncertainty with a probabilistic super-ensemble (meteorological ensemble chained to a multi-model approach) improves the quality of streamflow forecasts. On the other hand, there is no clear benefit from a semi-distributed approach compared with a lumped framework. This paper also explored the structure and size of the super-ensemble, showing that it is possible to reduce its complexity through model selection or combination methods without impairing predictive performance. This study provides valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of a super-ensemble approach and how to limit its complexity, contributing to the ongoing efforts to improve streamflow forecasting for operational purposes.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrologySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207