Depth and homogeneity in regional flood frequency analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional frequency analysis (RFA) consists generally of two steps: (1) delineation of hydrological homogeneous regions and (2) regional estimation. Existing regionalization methods which adopt this two‐step approach suffer from two principal drawbacks. First, the restriction of the regional estimation to a particular region by excluding some sites can correspond to a loss of some information. Second, the definition of a region generates a border effect problem. To overcome these problems, a new method is proposed in the present paper. The proposed method is based on three elements: (1) a weight function to treat the border effect problem, (b) a function to evaluate how “similar” each site is to the target one, and (c) an iterative procedure to improve estimation results. Element (b) is treated using the statistical notion of depth functions which is introduced to provide a ranking of stations in a multivariate context. Furthermore, the properties of depth functions meet the characteristics sought in RFA. It is shown that the proposed method is flexible and general and that traditional RFA methods represent special cases of the depth‐based approach corresponding to particular weight functions. A comparison is carried out with the canonical correlation analysis (CCA) approach. Results indicate that the depth‐based approach performs better than does CCA both in terms of relative bias and relative root mean squares error.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".