MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2298645942 · doi:10.3133/sir20165024

Estimating flood magnitude and frequency at gaged and ungaged sites on streams in Alaska and conterminous basins in Canada, based on data through water year 2012

2016· article· en· W2298645942 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janet H. Curran, Nancy A. Barth, Andrea G. Veilleux, Robert T. Ourso

Notice bibliographique

RevueScientific investigations report · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior
Mots-clésFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)Magnitude (astronomy)SkewEnvironmental scienceDrainage basinGeographyGeologyCartographyEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

First posted March 16, 2016 For additional information, contact: Director, Alaska Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey4210 University DriveAnchorage, Alaska 99508-4560http://alaska.usgs.gov Estimates of the magnitude and frequency of floods are needed across Alaska for engineering design of transportation and water-conveyance structures, flood-insurance studies, flood-plain management, and other water-resource purposes. This report updates methods for estimating flood magnitude and frequency in Alaska and conterminous basins in Canada. Annual peak-flow data through water year 2012 were compiled from 387 streamgages on unregulated streams with at least 10 years of record. Flood-frequency estimates were computed for each streamgage using the Expected Moments Algorithm to fit a Pearson Type III distribution to the logarithms of annual peak flows. A multiple Grubbs-Beck test was used to identify potentially influential low floods in the time series of peak flows for censoring in the flood frequency analysis.For two new regional skew areas, flood-frequency estimates using station skew were computed for stations with at least 25 years of record for use in a Bayesian least-squares regression analysis to determine a regional skew value. The consideration of basin characteristics as explanatory variables for regional skew resulted in improvements in precision too small to warrant the additional model complexity, and a constant model was adopted. Regional Skew Area 1 in eastern-central Alaska had a regional skew of 0.54 and an average variance of prediction of 0.45, corresponding to an effective record length of 22 years. Regional Skew Area 2, encompassing coastal areas bordering the Gulf of Alaska, had a regional skew of 0.18 and an average variance of prediction of 0.12, corresponding to an effective record length of 59 years. Station flood-frequency estimates for study sites in regional skew areas were then recomputed using a weighted skew incorporating the station skew and regional skew. In a new regional skew exclusion area outside the regional skew areas, the density of long-record streamgages was too sparse for regional analysis and station skew was used for all estimates. Final station flood frequency estimates for all study streamgages are presented for the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities.Regional multiple-regression analysis was used to produce equations for estimating flood frequency statistics from explanatory basin characteristics. Basin characteristics, including physical and climatic variables, were updated for all study streamgages using a geographical information system and geospatial source data. Screening for similar-sized nested basins eliminated hydrologically redundant sites, and screening for eligibility for analysis of explanatory variables eliminated regulated peaks, outburst peaks, and sites with indeterminate basin characteristics. An ordinary least‑squares regression used flood-frequency statistics and basin characteristics for 341 streamgages (284 in Alaska and 57 in Canada) to determine the most suitable combination of basin characteristics for a flood-frequency regression model and to explore regional grouping of streamgages for explaining variability in flood-frequency statistics across the study area. The most suitable model for explaining flood frequency used drainage area and mean annual precipitation as explanatory variables for the entire study area as a region. Final regression equations for estimating the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability discharge in Alaska and conterminous basins in Canada were developed using a generalized least-squares regression. The average standard error of prediction for the regression equations for the various annual exceedance probabilities ranged from 69 to 82 percent, and the pseudo-coefficient of determination (pseudo-R2) ranged from 85 to 91 percent.The regional regression equations from this study were incorporated into the U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats program for a limited area of the State—the Cook Inlet Basin. StreamStats is a national web-based geographic information system application that facilitates retrieval of streamflow statistics and associated information. StreamStats retrieves published data for gaged sites and, for user-selected ungaged sites, delineates drainage areas from topographic and hydrographic data, computes basin characteristics, and computes flood frequency estimates using the regional regression equations.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,104
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,209

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,234
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations23
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScientific investigations report→Même sujetHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→Travaux en français237 207→