Investigation of Attributes for Identifying Homogeneous Flood Regions for Regional Flood Frequency Analysis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of homogeneous flood regions is essential for regional flood frequency analysis. Despite the type of regionalization framework considered (e.g., region of influence or hierarchical clustering), selecting flood-related attributes to reflect flood generating mechanisms is required to discriminate flood regimes among catchments. To understand how different attributes perform across Canada for identifying homogeneous regions, this study examines five distinctive attributes (i.e., geographical proximity, flood seasonality, physiographic variables, monthly precipitation pattern, and monthly temperature pattern) for their ability to identify homogeneous regions at 186 gauging sites with their annual maximum flow data. We propose a novel region revision procedure to complement the well-known region of influence and L-Moments techniques that automates the identification of homogeneous regions across continental domains. Results are presented spatially for Canada to assess patterning of homogeneous regions. Memberships of two selected regions are investigated to provide insight into membership characteristics. Sites in eastern Canada are highly likely to identify homogeneous flood regions, while the western prairie and mountainous regions are not. Overall, it is revealed that the success of identifying homogeneous regions depends on local hydrological complexities, whether the considered attribute(s) reflect primary flooding mechanism(s), and on whether catchment sites are clustered in a small geographic region. Formation of effective pooling groups affords the extension of record lengths across the Canadian domain (where gauges typically have <50 years of record), facilitating more comprehensive analysis of higher return period flood needs for climate change assessment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".