Determination of flood seasonality from hydrological records / Détermination de la saisonnalité des crues à partir de séries hydrologiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of flood seasonality is a procedure with many practical applications in hydrology and water resources management. Several statistical methods for capturing flood seasonality have emerged during the last decade. So far, however, little attention has been paid to the uncertainty involved in the use of these methods, as well as to the reliability of their estimates. This paper compares the performance of annual maximum (AM) and peaks-over-threshold (POT) sampling models in flood seasonality estimation. Flood seasonality is determined by two most frequently used methods, one based on directional statistics (DS) and the other on the distribution of monthly relative frequencies of flood occurrence (RF). The performance is evaluated for the AM and three common POT sampling models depending on the estimation method, flood seasonality type and sample record length. The results demonstrate that the POT models outperform the AM model in most analysed scenarios. The POT sampling provides significantly more information on flood seasonality than the AM sampling. For certain flood seasonality types, POT samples can lead to estimation uncertainty that is found in up to ten-times longer AM samples. The performance of the RF method does not depend on the flood seasonality type as much as that of the DS method, which performs poorly on samples generated from complex seasonality distributions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".