MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411161761 · doi:10.5194/hess-29-2393-2025

Skilful probabilistic predictions of UK flood risk months ahead using a large-sample machine learning model trained on multimodel ensemble climate forecasts

2025· article· en· W4411161761 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Moulds, Louise Slater, Louise Arnal, Andrew W. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsOuranos
FundersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUK Research and InnovationNatural Environment Research CouncilU.S. ArmyUniversity of OxfordUniversity of Alabama
KeywordsProbabilistic logicFlood mythSample (material)Ensemble forecastingEnsemble learningClimate changeEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceClimatologyMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMeteorologyGeologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal streamflow forecasts are an important component of flood risk management. Hybrid forecasting methods that predict seasonal streamflow using machine learning (ML) models driven by climate model outputs are currently underexplored, yet they have some important advantages over traditional approaches using hydrological models. Here we develop a hybrid subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) streamflow forecasting system to predict the monthly maximum daily streamflow up to 4 months ahead. We train a quantile regression forest model on dynamical precipitation and temperature forecasts from a multimodel ensemble of 196 members (eight seasonal climate forecast models) from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) to produce probabilistic hindcasts for 579 stations across the UK for the period 2004–2016, with up to 4 months' lead time. We show that the large-sample (multi-site) ML model trained on pooled catchment data together with static catchment attributes is narrowly but significantly more skilful compared to single-site ML models trained on data from each catchment individually. Considering all initialisation months, 60 % of stations show positive skill (CRPSS > 0) relative to climatological reference forecasts in the first month after initialisation. This falls to 41 % in the second month, 38 % in the third month, and 33 % in the fourth month.

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)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207