MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074614307 · doi:10.4296/cwrj2804633

Modelling Future Streamflow Extremes — Floods and Low Flows in Georgia Basin, British Columbia

2003· article· en· W2074614307 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul H. Whitfield, J.Y. Wang, Alex J. Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceStreamflowSTREAMSFlood mythPrecipitationClimate changeEvapotranspirationWatershedHydrology (agriculture)Surface runoffDrainage basinHydrological modellingStructural basinClimate modelClimatologyGeologyMeteorologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Georgia Basin is one of the most hydrologically complex areas of Canada. Variations in temperature, precipitation and elevation influence the amount and form of water that drives streamflow in its rivers and streams. Climate change could have major regional effects on air temperature, precipitation, evapotranspiration, and ultimately runoff. In previous work, zones of homogenous hydrologic processes were delineated within the basin. Watersheds were separated into three types: rainfall-driven streams, snowmelt-driven streams, and hybrid (mixed rainfall- and snowmelt-driven) streams. Climate change was shown to have major regional effects on each type of watershed, affecting the amounts and patterns of runoff. In the current study we consider changes in extreme hydrologic events, floods and low flows, in these watersheds. Climate data downscaled from the Canadian Coupled General Circulation Model for future time periods are used as inputs to a hydrologic model optimized for mountain watersheds. The discrepancies between observed and modelled streamflows are examined. While the model reproduces central tendency measures well, there are significant biases in the ability of the models to reproduce extremes. Output from the hydrologic model is used to assess relative changes in the frequency, timing, and magnitude of floods and low flows between present and future (2020, 2050 and 2080) climate scenarios. The models suggest that frequency of floods will increase in all watersheds under the projected climate scenarios. In rainfall-driven streams, flood events increase in number, but not in magnitude. In hybrid streams, winter events occur more often while summer snowmelt flood events occur less often. In snowmelt-driven streams, the magnitude and duration of summer floods increase. Low flows in rainfall-driven streams maintain the same frequency and magnitude but occur over an extended period of time during summer. Hybrid streams show an increase in frequency, a decrease in magnitude, and a shift in time of occurrence of low flows to summer rather than winter. In snowmelt-driven streams, low flow events occur less often largely moderated by increased flow due to an overall increase in winter streamflow in a warmer climate.

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)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.165
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207