MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607069260 · doi:10.1002/env.909

Dynamic flood modeling: combining Hurst and Gumbel's approach

2008· preprint· en· W2607069260 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arthur Charpentier, David Sibaï

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmetrics · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesZhejiang UniversityUniversity of CambridgeIsrael Science FoundationFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesUniversity of TorontoNational Security AgencyAgence Nationale de la RechercheNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekAssociation Nationale de la Recherche et de la TechnologieAXA Research FundDivision of Mathematical SciencesHeriot-Watt UniversityMitacsFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsGumbel distributionMaximaExtreme value theoryFlood mythHurst exponentStatistical physicsGeneralized extreme value distributionMathematicsRange (aeronautics)EconometricsMeteorologyApplied mathematicsClimatologyGeographyStatisticsPhysicsGeologyEngineeringHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When working on river floods—annual river levels maxima—, two approaches are usually considered: one inspired from Emil Gumbel where annual maxima are supposed to be i.i.d. and distributed according to Gumbel's distribution, and one inspired from Edwin Hurst where annual maxima are strongly dependent, and exhibit long range memory. This paper tries to solve this apparent paradox by deriving a dynamic model inspired from financial models, which does not take into account annual maxima only but also threshold exceedances. It studies the implications of such a paradox in terms of return period—a notion valid as long as the data are i.i.d—and of extremal events. Copyright © 2008 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmetricsSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207