Pooled frequency analysis for intensity–duration–frequency curve estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rainfall intensity–duration–frequency (IDF) curves are used in the design of urban infrastructure. Their estimation is based on rainfall frequency analysis, usually performed on rainfall records from a single gauged station. However, available at‐site record length is often too short to provide accurate estimates for long return periods. In the present study, a general framework for pooled rainfall frequency analysis based on the index‐event model is proposed for IDF estimation at gauged stations. Pooling group formation is defined by the region of influence approach on the basis of the geographical distance similarity measure. Several pooled approaches are defined and evaluated by a procedure through which quantile estimation and uncertainty are assessed. Alternate approaches for the definition of a pooling group are based on different criteria regarding initial pooling group size (and the relationship between size and return period), approaches for assessing pooling group homogeneity, and the use of macroregions in pooling group formation. The proposed framework is applied to identify the preferred approach for pooled rainfall intensity frequency analysis in Canada. Pooled approaches are found to provide more precise estimates than the at‐site approach, especially for long return periods. Pooled parent distribution selection supported the use of the generalized extreme value distribution across the country. Recommendations for pooling group formation include increasing the pooling group size with increases in return period and identifying an appropriate trade‐off between pooling group homogeneity and size for long return periods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".