MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051024048 · doi:10.1139/l00-122

Flood frequency analysis for the Red River at Winnipeg

2001· article· en· W2051024048 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Donald H. Burn, N. K. Goel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlood mythQuantile100-year floodReturn periodSeries (stratigraphy)Environmental scienceMagnitude (astronomy)Hydrology (agriculture)Time seriesGeographyStatisticsMathematicsGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the flood frequency characteristics of the Red River at Winnipeg. The impacts of persistence in the flood series on estimates of flood quantiles and their associated confidence intervals are examined. This is done by generating a large number of data sequences using a mixed noise model that preserves the short-term and long-term correlation structures of the observed flood series. The results reveal that persistence in the data series can lead to a slight increase in the expected flood magnitude for a given return period. More importantly, persistence is shown to dramatically increase the uncertainty associated with estimated flood quantiles. The 117-year flood series for the Red River at Winnipeg is demonstrated to be equivalent to roughly 45 years of independent data.Key words: flood frequency, extreme events, simulation, historical data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207