MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414340472 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-4450

Towards a semi-asynchronous method for hydrological modeling in climate change studies

2025· article· en· W4414340472 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frédéric Talbot, Simon Ricard, Guillaume Drolet, Annie Poulin, Jean‐Luc Martel, Richard Arsenault, Jean‐Daniel Sylvain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Université LavalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowmeltClimate changeStreamflowClimate modelAsynchronous communicationCalibrationHydrological modellingForcing (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Hydrological impact assessments under climate change commonly rely on conventional modeling chains where climate projections are bias-corrected before being used in hydrological simulations. While this improves agreement with historical observations, it can introduce methodological uncertainties, reduce the diversity of climate ensembles, and smooth out extreme events. Asynchronous methods have been proposed as an alternative, allowing hydrological models to be calibrated directly with raw climate model outputs. However, fully asynchronous methods often fail to capture the timing of key hydrological processes, especially in snow-affected regions. This study introduces and evaluates a semi-asynchronous calibration approach that incorporates a monthly temporal structure to address these limitations. Using the physically based WaSiM model, we compare the semi-asynchronous, fully asynchronous, and conventional methods across ten snow-influenced catchments in southern Quebec, Canada, under historical and future climate conditions. The results show that while the fully asynchronous and semi-asynchronous methods perform well in preserving streamflow distributions and high-flow extremes, only the semi-asynchronous method succeeds in restoring the seasonal timing of key processes such as snowmelt and low flows. The semi-asynchronous method notably reduces intermodel variability in streamflow and snow water equivalent compared to the fully asynchronous approach. It also exhibits seasonal dynamics that closely align with observations and the conventional method, despite relying on uncorrected climate inputs. In contrast, the fully asynchronous method shows signs of desynchronization, with unrealistic snowmelt timing and elevated variability across projections. The conventional method, while more stable in the historical period, exhibits an increase in intermodel variability under future conditions, likely due to divergent magnitudes of projected change across climate models. The semi-asynchronous method presents a clear improvement over the fully asynchronous approach by restoring temporal coherence and improving the simulation of seasonal processes. It also reduces intermodel variability while maintaining the raw climate signal and preserving the distribution of streamflow. Compared to the conventional method, which benefits from stable and consistent simulations but tends to dampen extremes through bias correction, the semi-asynchronous approach offers a compelling alternative. It strikes a different balance between realism, ensemble diversity, and the ability to represent extreme events, making it particularly valuable for future-oriented climate impact assessments. This study highlights the potential of the semi-asynchronous method as an innovative and robust tool for hydrological modeling under climate change. As climate model simulations continue to improve and their biases are progressively reduced, the semi-asynchronous approach is poised to benefit significantly, enhancing its potential for future hydrological projections.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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