A novel method to estimate the maximization ratio of the <scp>P</scp>robable <scp>M</scp>aximum <scp>P</scp>recipitation (<scp>P</scp>MP) using regional climate model output
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The moisture maximization approach has a simple technique for controlling the risk of overestimating the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP): the maximization ratio is limited by an upper bound. The upper bound limit depends on storm records and watershed characteristics. However, it is not readily available in many watersheds. A robust scientific justification for limiting the maximization ratio is missing. In this paper, a novel approach is proposed to estimate the maximization ratio which does not impose an upper limit. The new approach, which uses regional climate model data, is based on constructing annual maximum precipitable water time series with precipitable water values for which atmospheric variables are similar to the original event to be maximized. These time series are then used to estimate the 100 year return period of the precipitable water value required to calculate the ratio. The new approach was tested in three watersheds in the province of Québec, Canada. Results showed that maximization ratio values were lower than the proposed upper bound value for these watersheds. In comparison to the approach using an upper bound, the proposed approach reduced the PMPs in these watersheds by 11%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".