Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design flood estimates have traditionally been based on records of past events. However, there is a need for a method of estimating peak flows without these records. The Estimated Parameter Flood Forecasting Model (EPFFM) has been developed to provide such a method for small water resource projects based on a 200 year or less design flood. This "user friendly" computer model calculates the expected peak flow and its standard deviation from low, probable, and high estimates of thirteen user supplied parameters. These parameters describe physical characteristics of the drainage basin, infiltration rates, and rainstorm characteristics. The standard deviation provides a measure of reliability and is used to produce an 80% confidence interval on peak flows. The thesis briefly reviews existing flow estimation techniques and then describes the development of EPFFM. This includes descriptions of the Chicago method of rainfall hyetograph synthesis, Horton's infiltration equation, inflow by time-area method, Muskingum routing equation, and an approximate method of estimating the variance of multivariate equations since these are all used by EPFFM to model the physical and mathematical processes involved. Two examples are included to demonstrate EPFFM's ability to estimate a confidence interval, and compare these with recorded peak flows.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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".