Estimating Low-Flow Frequency Statistics and Hydrologic Analysis of Selected Streamflow-Gaging Stations, Nooksack River Basin, Northwestern Washington and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-flow frequency statistics were computed at 17 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations and 8 miscellaneous measurement sites in and near the Nooksack River basin in northwestern Washington and Canada, including the 1, 3, 7, 15, 30, and 60 consecutive-day low flows with recurrence intervals of 2 and 10 years. Using these low-flow statistics, 12 regional regression equations were developed for estimating the same low-flow statistics at ungaged sites in the Nooksack River basin using a weighted-least-squares method. Adjusted R2 (coefficient of determination) values for the equations ranged from 0.79 to 0.93 and the root-mean-squared error (RMSE) expressed as a percentage ranged from 77 to 560 percent. Streamflow records from six gaging stations located in mountain-stream or lowland-stream subbasins of the Nooksack River basin were analyzed to determine if any of the gaging stations could be removed from the network without significant loss of information. Using methods of hydrograph comparison, daily-value correlation, variable space, and flow-duration ratios, and other factors relating to individual subbasins, the six gaging stations were prioritized from most to least important as follows: Skookum Creek (12209490), Anderson Creek (12210900), Warm Creek (12207750), Fishtrap Creek (12212050), Racehorse Creek (12206900), and Clearwater Creek (12207850). The optimum streamflow-gaging station network would contain all gaging stations except Clearwater Creek, and the minimum network would include Skookum Creek and Anderson Creek.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".