Regionalization of heavy rainfall to improve climatic design values for infrastructure: case study in Southern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Southern Ontario, Canada, has been impacted in recent years by many heavy rainfall and flooding events that have exceeded existing historical estimates of infrastructure design rainfall intensity–duration–frequency (IDF) values. These recent events and the limited number of short-duration recording raingauges have prompted the need to research the climatology of heavy rainfall events within the study area, review the existing design IDF methodologies, and evaluate alternative approaches to traditional point-based heavy rainfall IDF curves, such as regional IDF design values. The use of additional data and the regional frequency analysis methodology were explored for the study area, with the objective of validating identified clusters or homogeneous regions of extreme rainfall amounts through Ward's method. As the results illustrate, nine homogeneous regions were identified in Southern Ontario using the annual maximum series (AMS) for daily and 24-h rainfall data from climate and rate-of-rainfall or tipping bucket raingauge (TBRG) stations, respectively. In most cases, the generalized extreme value and logistic distributions were identified as the statistical distributions that provide the best fit for the 24-h and sub-daily rainfall data in the study area. A connection was observed between extreme rainfall variability, temporal scale of heavy rainfall events and location of each homogeneous region. Moreover, the analysis indicated that scaling factors cannot be used reliably to estimate sub-daily and sub-hourly values from 24- and 1-h data in Southern Ontario. Citation Paixao, E., Auld, H., Mirza, M.M.Q., Klaassen, J. & Shephard, M.W. (2011) Regionalization of heavy rainfall to improve climatic design values for infrastructure: case study in Southern Ontario, Canada. Hydrol. Sci. J. 56(7), 1067–1089.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".