MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091866563 · doi:10.4296/cwrj3201043

Local Non-Stationary Flood-Duration-Frequency Modelling

2007· article· en· W2091866563 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Juraj M. Cunderlik, Véronique Jourdain, Taha B.M.J. Quarda, Bernard Bobée

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythDuration (music)HydrographFrequency analysisEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Flood forecastingStatisticsGeographyGeologyMathematicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flood-duration-frequency modelling is an extension of standard flood frequency analysis that takes into account the multi-duration aspect of flood hydrographs. The key assumption of this approach is that the parameters describing the flood frequency distribution for any flood duration do not change over time. In reality, however, as a consequence of local and/or global anthropogenic activities, stationarity of hydrologic records cannot be assumed. New methods that take into account the non-stationarity of hydrologic records and that can properly deal with time-dependent parameters of flood frequency distributions need to be developed and used in practice. This study introduces formal aspects of non-stationary flood-duration-frequency modelling. The presented approach uses trend analysis to identify time-dependent components of the model and to predict their changes in the future. The significance of the time-dependent parameters is reflected in the structure of the model. The approach is illustrated on a study catchment in British Columbia, Canada.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207