MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478369549 · doi:10.1002/hyp.10969

Extreme precipitation time trends in Ontario, 1960–2010

2016· article· en· W2478369549 on OpenAlexaffabout
E. D. Soulis, Ali Sarhadi, M. Tinel, M. Suthar

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationClimate changeEnvironmental scienceStormTrend analysisClimatologyDuration (music)Return periodMeteorologyGeographyStatisticsGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The impact of climate change on the behaviour of intensity–duration–frequency curves is critical to the estimation of design storms, and thus to the safe design of drainage infrastructure. The present study develops a regional time trend methodology that detects the impact of climate change on extreme precipitation from 1960 to 2010. The regional time trend linear regression method is fitted to different durations of annual maximum precipitation intensities derived from multiple sites in Ontario, Canada. The results show the relationship between climate change and increased extreme precipitation in this province. The regional trend analysis demonstrates, under nonstationary conditions arising from climate change, that the intensity of extreme precipitation increased decennially between 1.25% for the 30‐min storm and 1.82% for the 24‐h storm. A comparison of the results with a regional Mann–Kendall test validates the found regional time‐trend results. The results are employed to extrapolate the intensity–duration–frequency curves temporally and spatially for future decades across the province. The results of the regional time trend assessment help with the establishment of new safety margins for infrastructure design in Ontario. Copyright © 2016 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.004

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207