MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial dependence of floods and droughts: learning from differences in regional and seasonal patterns

2020· article· en· W3087852411 on OpenAlexaff
Manuela I. Brunner, Eric Gilleland, Daniel L. Swain, Andrew W. Wood, Martyn Clark

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythSpatial dependenceSpatial ecologyEnvironmental scienceSpatial heterogeneityGeographyClimatologyPhysical geographyEcologyStatisticsMathematicsBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regional flood and drought events often have more severe impacts than localized events in terms of damages and costs, the number of affected people, and habitat changes. Understanding which regions may be jointly affected by such extreme events can help us to derive reliable regional risk estimates, plan and manage resource flows, and develop suitable adaptation measures. However, the spatial dimension of droughts and floods is often neglected when deriving hazard estimates and we know little about the processes governing their spatial dependencies. Therefore, we investigate how and why spatial dependencies in droughts and floods vary seasonally and regionally over the United States. We aim to gain new insight into processes governing spatial dependencies of droughts and floods by contrasting their regional and seasonal patterns. To map regions with a similar seasonal flood and drought behavior, respectively, we introduce a measure of connectedness, which quantifies the number of catchments with which a specific catchment co-experiences flood or drought events. We then summarize the spatial dependencies by identifying regions with a similar flood behavior and regions with a similar drought behavior. To do so, we use a hierarchical clustering procedure on the F-madogram, which is a measure of spatial dependence for extremes. We look at regional and seasonal differences in spatial dependence both for floods and droughts and subsequently compare the two phenomena. We find that spatial dependence is over all seasons stronger for droughts than for floods. Both types of extremes, however, show regional and seasonal differences in spatial connectedness. Droughts show the strongest spatial dependence in fall. In contrast, the Rocky Mountains show the highest spatial dependence of droughts in winter because of snow accumulation. Very low spatial dependence is found in spring. The seasonal, spatial dependence patterns of floods are opposed to the one of droughts. Spatial flood dependence is highest in spring, especially in mountainous areas, high in winter at the Pacific coast and the Appalachian Mountains, and high in summer in the Rocky Mountains. In contrast, spatial connectedness is very weak in fall. We conclude that spatial dependence patterns are stronger for droughts than floods because of the slower processes and longer durations associated with the phenomenon. Furthermore, we conclude that both meteorological and land surface processes such as snowmelt and the availability of soil moisture shape the spatial dependence patterns of each extreme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207