Spring flood analysis using the flood‐duration–frequency approach: application to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most often, flood frequency analysis describes a flood event only by its peak. However, the true flood severity is also defined by its volume and duration. This paper presents an approach allowing flood events to be considered in a more complete way: the flood‐duration–frequency (QdF) approach. In a similar manner to the rainfall intensity–duration–frequency analysis, averaged discharges are computed over different fixed durations d . For each duration a frequency distribution of maximum averaged discharges is studied. Finally, a continuous formulation is fitted, as a function of the return period T and the duration d over which discharges have been averaged. The proposed model has been tested for 169 catchments in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, Canada. The shapes of the QdF curves enabled us to define different types of flood behaviour and to identify the corresponding geographic regions. This mapping of flood behaviour was the basis for the delineation of seven homogeneous geographical regions, containing catchments having the same hydrological behaviour as is required for regional flood frequency analysis. Copyright © 2003 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".