MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040582825 · doi:10.1002/hyp.8088

Flood seasonality‐based regionalization methods: a data‐based comparison

2011· article· en· W2040582825 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Sarhadi, Reza Modarres

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythQuantileSeasonalityAridEstimationEnvironmental scienceDrainage basinFlood forecastingHydrology (agriculture)Computer scienceGeographyStatisticsCartographyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Improving techniques of flood frequency estimation at ungauged catchments is one of the major challenges for hydrologists, especially in arid and semi‐arid regions with insufficient information. Recently, popularity of flood seasonality‐based descriptors has increased among hydrologists for delineating of hydrologically homogenous regions. This study presents a data‐based comparison of three well‐known flood seasonality‐based regionalization methods in Halilrud basin in southeastern Iran. A Jack‐knife procedure is used to assess the performance of the methods for flood quantile estimation at ungauged sites. The results of these three seasonality‐based methods are compared to those results obtained from two alternative methods: a traditional regionalization method based on catchment's hydrogeomorphic characteristics similarity and a scenario that uses all available information without subdividing area. The results indicate that although peak over threshold (POT) approach which uses all flood events during year leads to better performance than other methods, but applying POT data series in a specific season (critical season) based on POT‐CS approach leads to better homogenous region and improves flood quantile estimation at ungauged sites. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207