MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1892266637 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-14-0227.1

A Nonlinear Approach to Regional Flood Frequency Analysis Using Projection Pursuit Regression

2015· article· en· W1892266637 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin Durocher, Fateh Chebana, Taha B. M. J. Ouarda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythProjection pursuitNonlinear systemComputer scienceRegressionArtificial neural networkProjection (relational algebra)Structural basinGeneralized additive modelQuantileRepresentation (politics)EconometricsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMachine learningGeographyGeologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents an approach for regional flood frequency analysis (RFFA) in the presence of nonlinearity and problematic stations, which require adapted methodologies. To this end, the projection pursuit regression (PPR) is proposed. The PPR is a family of regression models that applies smooth functions on intermediate predictors to fit complex patterns. The PPR approach can be seen as a hybrid method between the generalized additive model (GAM) and the artificial neural network (ANN), which combines the advantages of both methods. Indeed, the PPR approach has the structure of a GAM to describe nonlinear relations between hydrological variables and other basin characteristics. On the other hand, PPR can consider interactions between basin characteristics to improve the predictive capabilities in a similar way to ANN, but simpler. The methodology developed in the present study is applied to a case study represented by hydrometric stations from southern Québec, Canada. It is shown that flood quantiles are mostly associated with a dominant intermediate predictor, which provides a parsimonious representation of the nonlinearity in the flood-generating processes. The model performance is compared to eight other methods available in the literature for the same dataset, including GAM and ANN. When using the same basin characteristics, the results indicate that the simpler structure of PPR does not affect the global performance and that PPR is competitive with the best existing methods in RFFA. Particular attention is also given to the performance resulting from the choice of the basin characteristics and the presence of problematic stations.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrometeorologySame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207