MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502343398 · doi:10.1029/2001wr000677

Regional estimation of flood quantiles: Parametric versus nonparametric regression models

2002· article· en· W1502343398 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Latraverse, P. F. Rasmussen, Bernard Bobée

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsNonparametric regressionEstimatorCurse of dimensionalityEconometricsQuantileParametric statisticsFlood mythMultivariate statisticsRegression analysisMetric (unit)RegressionStatisticsQuantile regressionSimilarity (geometry)Computer scienceMathematicsGeographyArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent trend in regional frequency analysis is to consider floating regions where only basins that are sufficiently similar to the design site are considered for information transfer. Similarity is measured in some suitable metric of catchment characteristics. This paper discusses the analogy between this idea and nonparametric regression. Some of the techniques developed recently in the area of nonparametric regression are employed to develop improved regional flood estimators. The additive model used here to a large extent overcomes the curse of dimensionality often associated with nonparametric regression on multivariate predictor space. The application of the proposed methodology to selected areas of the United States suggests that there can be substantial gains over the traditional log linear models currently employed.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207