MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115908016 · doi:10.1002/hyp.70359

Comparative Evaluation of Gridded Precipitation Datasets in Capturing Hydrological Extremes in a Mesoscale Heterogeneous Catchment in Austria

2025· article· en· W7115908016 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationRain gaugeDrainage basinFlood mythStreamflowWater cycleCatchment hydrologyMesoscale meteorologyHydrological modelling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Accurate representation of extreme precipitation is crucial for assessing flood hazards and developing risk mitigation strategies. For such applications, gridded Precipitation Products (PPs) can be a promising alternative to traditional point measurements, especially in regions where such measurements are sparse or non‐existent. However, the accuracy of PPs in representing extreme precipitation should be evaluated before use. In this study, we evaluate the performance of four PPs (SPARTACUS v2.1, IMERG‐F v07, CHIRPS v2.0, and ERA5‐Land) against 33 precipitation gauges at a daily time scale over the Kamp catchment in Austria for the period 1998–2020. The hydrological response in the catchment is influenced not only by the intensity of extreme precipitation events but also by antecedent soil moisture and seasonal conditions. Continuous and categorical performance metrics are used to evaluate the performance of the PPs at gauge locations. Additionally, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool Plus (SWAT+) model is used to assess the reliability of PPs when used as forcings for hydrological modelling. The results reveal that while most evaluated products can detect no‐rain events, their ability to capture extreme precipitation events varies notably. SPARTACUS v2.1 exhibited the best ability to detect extremes at gauge locations, resulting in streamflow simulation that closely matched the observed data. IMERG‐F v07 demonstrated moderate performance in both extreme precipitation detection and corresponding peak flow generation. In contrast, CHIRPS v2.0 and ERA5‐Land showed poor performance in representing extreme precipitation, resulting in underestimated high flows and lower reliability in simulating flood‐related hydrological processes. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating the ability of PPs in capturing extreme precipitation to ensure reliable simulation of flood peaks and hydrological extremes. We conclude that catchment‐specific validation linking precipitation extremes to hydrological responses is essential for selecting appropriate precipitation forcings for hydrological applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicPrecipitation Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207