Hydrological Modelling of River Flow Forecasting in Cold Regions and Its Application over the Athabasca River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floods are disasters that represent a growing threat to the communities living close to rivers. To maximize community resilience, the main objective was to formulate a transferable framework for river flow forecasting in cold and poorly gauged/ungauged regions. First, the literature was reviewed, summarizing the recent findings in river flow forecasting in these regions. Here, hydrological processes greatly vary seasonally and annually, translating into increased model uncertainty. Regionalization, spatial calibration, and other methods were implemented into process-based and empirical models. Although process-based models provided a wide understanding of a watershed’s hydrology, they were often complex and computationally demanding. Empirical models produced fewer calibration parameters although generated biased results when insufficient descriptors were available. The results from this review highlighted some efforts necessary to improve river flow forecasting, including: coping with limited data; providing user-friendly interfaces; advancing model structure; developing a universal method for transferring parameters; standardizing calibration and validation; integrating process-based and empirical models. In addition, a machine learning-based model was developed using a single-input sequential adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) in the Athabasca River Basin (ARB) in Alberta, Canada. After estimating the optimal lead time between four hydrometric stations, data measured near the source were used to compute flows near the mouth, over approximately 1,000 km. This technique was compared to nonsequential and multi-input ANFIS, which used data from all the four hydrometric stations. The results showed that sequential ANFIS could accurately predict flows (r2 = 0.99, Nash–Sutcliffe = 0.98) with a longer lead time (6 days) using a single input. Finally, a novel simplistic method for short-term (6 days) forecasting called Flow Difference Model (FDM) was developed and compared against existing hydrological models (i.e., Regression Models (RM) and Base Difference Model (BDM)), to demonstrate that simplistic modelling can achieve acceptable accuracy. The results showed that the FDM outperformed the other models (Nash–Sutcliffe = 0.95) using limited inputs and calibration parameters. Moreover, the FDM had similar performance to machine learning techniques, demonstrating the forecasting capability of simplistic methods. These findings could be utilized towards flood prevention and planning, operations, maintenance, and administration of water resource systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".