Reservoir Sizing at Draft Level of 75% of Mean Annual Flow Using Drought Magnitude Based Method on Canadian Rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On a global basis, there is trend that a majority of reservoirs are sized using a draft of 75% of the mean annual flow (0.75 MAF). The reservoir volumes based on the proposed drought magnitude (DM) method and the sequent peak algorithm (SPA) at 0.75 MAF draft were compared at the annual, monthly and weekly scales using the flow sequences of 25 Canadian rivers. In our assessment, the monthly scale is adequate for such analyses. The DM method, although capable of using flow data at any time scale, has been demonstrated using monthly standardized hydrological index (SHI) sequences. The moving average (MA) smoothing of the monthly SHI sequences formed the basis in the DM method for estimating the reservoir volume through the use of the extreme number theorem, and the hypothesis that drought magnitude is equal to the product of the drought intensity and drought length. The truncation level in the SHI sequences was found as SHIo [ = (0.75 ‒ 1) µo/σo], where µo and σo are the overall mean and standard deviation of the monthly flows. The DM-based estimates for the deficit volumes and the SPA-based reservoir volumes were found comparable within an error margin of ±18%.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".