MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056629573 · doi:10.1002/hyp.7705

Multivariate analysis as a tool to infer hydrologic response types and controlling variables in a humid temperate catchment

2010· article· en· W2056629573 on OpenAlexafffund
Geneviève Ali, André G. Roy, Marie‐Claude Turmel, François Courchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHydrographDrainage basinStreamflowEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Temperate climateMultivariate statisticsCatchment hydrologyPrincipal component analysisStatisticsGeologyGeographyEcologyCartographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We assess the ability of multivariate statistical analyses applied to event hydrographs parameters, to characterize a catchment hydrological behaviour. Motivation for such an approach lies in the fact that streamflow records have yet to be exploited to their full potential towards hydrological interpretation and can be used to infer a catchment state of connectivity from a qualitative standpoint. We have therefore processed 96 event hydrographs from a small headwater temperate humid forested catchment using principal component analysis, variation partitioning and classification tree analysis. These techniques prove to be promising in discriminating contrasted types of hydrologic responses (e.g. low‐ vs high‐magnitude events, slow vs quick timing events), identifying the main hydro‐meteorological variables that control these responses and determining thresholds values of the hydro‐meteorological variables leading to a switch between catchment response types. Copyright © 2010 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207