Bias compensation in flood frequency analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood frequency analysis (FFA) is essential for water resources management. Long flow records improve the precision of estimated quantiles; however, in some cases, sample size in one location is not sufficient to achieve a reliable estimate of the statistical parameters and thus, regional FFA is commonly used to decrease the uncertainty in the prediction. In this paper, the bias of several commonly used parameter estimators, including L-moment, probability weighted moment and maximum likelihood estimation, applied to the general extreme value (GEV) distribution is evaluated using a Monte Carlo simulation. Two bias compensation approaches: compensation based on the shape parameter, and compensation using three GEV parameters, are proposed based on the analysis and the models are then applied to streamflow records in southern Alberta. Compensation efficiency varies among estimators and between compensation approaches. The results overall suggest that compensation of the bias due to the estimator and short sample size would significantly improve the accuracy of the quantile estimation. In addition, at-site FFA is able to provide reliable estimation based on short data, when accounting for the bias in the estimator appropriately.Editor D. Koutsoyiannis; Associate editor Sheng Yue
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".