MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bivariate Flood Frequency Analysis Using the Copula Method

2006· article· en· W2137848529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Zhang, Vijay P. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)Bivariate analysisGumbel distributionFlood mythMarginal distributionStatisticsMathematicsJoint probability distributionHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceEconometricsExtreme value theoryGeologyRandom variableGeographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the copula method, bivariate distributions of flood peak and volume, and flood volume and duration were derived. A major advantage of this method is that marginal distributions of individual variables (i.e., flood peak, volume, and duration) can be of any form and the variables can be correlated. The copula method was applied to obtain the conditional return periods that are needed for hydrologic design. The derived distributions were tested using flood data from Amite River at Denham Springs, La., and the Ashuapmushuan River at Saguenay, Quebec, Canada. The derived distributions were also compared with the Gumbel mixed and the bivariate Box–Cox transformed normal distributions. The copula-based distributions were found to be in better agreement with plotting position-based frequency estimates than were other distributions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations528
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydrologic EngineeringSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207