Comparison of impacts of dams on the annual maximum flow characteristics in three regulated hydrologic regimes in Québec (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the presence of numerous dams in Québec, no study has yet been devoted to their impacts on flood levels. To compensate for this deficiency, we have compared the impacts of dams on the five characteristics (magnitude and its interannual variability, timing and its interannual variability, and asymmetry) of the maximum annual flows between natural rivers and regulated rivers by means of several statistical approaches (analysis of variance, chi‐square test, nonparametric tests, etc.). In the course of this study, we analysed 88 stations on pristine rivers and 60 stations on regulated rivers. The latter group was subdivided into three regulated hydrologic regimes, i.e. inversed flow regimes (25 stations), homogenization flow regimes (15 stations) and natural‐type flow regimes (20 stations). The following observations emerge from this study. (1) In inversed and homogenization flow regimes, generally associated with reservoirs, all the flow characteristics are modified. These modifications notably entrain a decrease in magnitude, a significant reduction in the frequency of the maximum annual spring flows when the snow is melting and an increase in skewness of the distribution and interannual variability of the magnitude and dates of occurrence of the annual maximum flows. We also observed the disappearance of most flows with a recurrence of over 10 years. All these changes particularly affect watersheds larger than 10 000 km 2 . (2) In natural‐type flow regimes, often associated with run‐of‐river dams, very few changes were observed compared with pristine rivers. These changes primarily affected watersheds smaller than 1000 km 2 . Copyright © 2006 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".