MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018314333 · doi:10.4296/cwrj3601067

Trends and Variability in Extreme Rainfall Events in British Columbia

2011· article· en· W2018314333 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Donald H. Burn, Rami Mansour, Kan Zhang, Paul H. Whitfield

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsGeographyClimatologyResamplingPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes hourly rainfall data from a collection of tipping bucket rain gauges in British Columbia. The hourly rainfall data are used to define peaks over threshold (POT) rainfall events for durations of 1, 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours. This database is then used to define, on an annual basis, the number of over threshold events, the average magnitude of the over threshold events, and the largest over threshold event. Trend analysis is conducted for these three variables for each duration and for several common analysis periods drawn from the period 1966 to 2005. The identification and estimation of trends is conducted using the Mann-Kendall nonparametric test for trend. The global, or field, significance of the trend results is established using a bootstrap resampling approach. The research reveals generally increasing trends in extreme rainfall, especially for the summer season and for the short duration rainfall events.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207