Regional Frequency Analysis at Ungauged Sites with the Generalized Additive Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The log-linear regression model is one of the most commonly used models to estimate flood quantiles at ungauged sites within the regional frequency analysis (RFA) framework. However, hydrological processes are naturally complex in several aspects including nonlinearity. The aim of the present paper is to take into account this nonlinearity by introducing the generalized additive model (GAM) in the estimation step of RFA. A neighborhood approach using canonical correlation analysis (CCA) is used to delineate homogenous regions. GAMs possess a number of advantages such as flexibility in shapes of the relationships as well as the distribution of the output variable. The regional model is applied on a dataset of 151 hydrometrical stations located in the province of Québec, Canada. A stepwise procedure is employed to select the appropriate physiometeorological variables. A comparison is performed based on different elements (regional model, variable selection, and delineation). Results indicate that models using GAM outperform models using the log-linear regression as well as other methods applied to this dataset. In addition, GAM is flexible and allows for the inclusion and presentation of nonlinear effects of explanatory variables, in particular, basin area effect (scale). Another finding is the reduced effect of CCA delineation when combined with GAM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".