Implications of heterogeneous flood‐frequency distributions on traditional stream‐discharge prediction techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditional flood‐frequency analysis involves the assumption of homogeneity of the flood distribution. However, floods are often generated by heterogeneous distributions composed of a mixture of two or more populations. Differences between the populations may be the result of a number of factors, including seasonal variations in the flood‐producing mechanisms, changes in weather patterns resulting from low‐frequency climate shifts and/or El Niño/La Nina oscillations, changes in channel routing owing to the dominance of within‐channel or floodplain flow, and basin variability resulting from changes in antecedent soil moisture. Not recognizing these physical processes in conventional flood‐frequency analysis probably is the main reason that many frequency distributions do not provide an acceptable fit to flood data. In this paper, we use long‐term hydroclimatic records from the Gila River basin of south‐east and central Arizona in the USA to explore the extent and significance of mixed populations. First, we discuss the probable causes of heterogeneity in the frequency distribution of annual flood and present evidence of its occurrence. Second, we investigate the implications of using various popular homogeneous distributions for predicting peak flows for basins that exhibit mixed population characteristics. Third, we demonstrate how alternative frequency models that explicitly account for floods generated by a mixture of two or more populations are both hydrologically and statistically more appropriate. We illustrate how the selection of the most plausible distribution for flood‐frequency analysis also should be based on hydrological reasoning as opposed to the sole application of the traditional statistical goodness‐of‐fit tests. Copyright © 2002 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 | 0.011 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".