MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034342768 · doi:10.1029/2000wr900046

Regional rainfall depth‐duration‐frequency equations for Canada

2000· article· en· W2034342768 on OpenAlexaffabout
Younes Alila

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuration (music)StormReturn periodPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Elevation (ballistics)ClimatologySampling (signal processing)StatisticsGeologyMeteorologyPhysical geographyMathematicsGeographyGeometryFlood myth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geographical variation of short‐duration rainfall extremes in Canada is first evaluated in terms of depth‐duration and depth‐frequency ratios. Depth‐duration ratios, defined as the ratios of the t ‐min to the 60‐min rainfall depths of the same return period, are found to be independent of return period and geographical location for any storm duration of less than 60 min. However, for storms of longer durations, depth‐duration ratios are found to depend on both the return period and geographical location indexed by the at‐site mean annual precipitation. Depth‐frequency ratios, defined as the ratios of the T ‐year to the 10‐year rainfall depths of the same storm duration, are also found to depend on the return period and geographical location. Generalized expressions of depth‐duration and depth‐frequency ratios are then combined to develop regional depth‐duration‐frequency equations. A split sampling experiment has verified that the proposed equations reproduce satisfactorily the design storms at long‐term record stations in different hydrologic zones. The proposed equations represent a viable alternative to current interpolation procedures as they eliminate the need for isoline maps of both mean and standard deviation of annual rainfall maxima for various durations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations53
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207