Understanding catchment influences on flood generating processes - accounting for correlated attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding flood generating mechanisms is critical for model development and evaluation. While several studies analyse how catchment attributes influence flood magnitude and duration, very few studies examine how they influence flood generating processes. Based on prior knowledge about runoff behaviour and flood generation, we assume that flood processes depend not only on climate, but also on catchment characteristics such as topography, vegetation and geology. Specifically, we hypothesize that the influence of catchment attributes on flood processes will vary between different climate types. We tested our hypothesis on the CAMELS dataset, a large sample (671) of catchments in the United States. We classified 61,828 flood events into flood process types using a previously published location-independent classification methodology. Then we quantified the importance of both individual attributes (comparing probability distributions of different flood types) and interacting attributes (using random forests). Accumulated local effects allow interpretability of random forest with correlated attributes. Results show that climate attributes most strongly influence the distribution of flood generating processes within a catchment. However, other catchment attributes can be influential, depending on climate type. Based on the subset of influential catchment attributes, a random forest model can predict flood generating processes with high accuracy for most processes and climates, demonstrating capabilities to predict flood processes in ungauged catchments. Some attributes proved less influential than common hydrologic knowledge would suggest and are not informative in predicting flood process distribution.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".