Assessing Climatic Drivers of Spring Mean and Annual Maximum Flows in Western Canadian River Basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flows originating from cold and mountainous watersheds are highly dependent on temperature and precipitation patterns, and the resulting snow accumulation and melt conditions, affecting the magnitude and timing of annual peak flows. This study applied a multiple linear regression (MLR) modelling framework to investigate spatial variations and relative importance of hydroclimatic drivers of annual maximum flows (AMF) and mean spring flows (MAMJflow) in 25 river basins across western Canada. The results show that basin average maximum snow water equivalent (SWEmax), April 1st SWE and spring precipitation (MAMJprc) are the most important predictors of both AMF and MAMJflow, with the proportion of explained variance averaging 51.7%, 44.0% and 33.5%, respectively. The MLR models’ abilities to project future changes in AMF and MAMJflow in response to changes to the hydroclimatic controls are also examined using the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CanRCM4) output for RCP 4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. The results show considerable spatial variations depending on individual watershed characteristics with projected changes in AMF ranging from −69% to +126% and those of MAMJflow ranging from −48% to +81% by the end of this century. In general, the study demonstrates that the MLR framework is a useful approach for assessing the spatial variation in hydroclimatic controls of annual maximum and mean spring flows in the western Canadian river basins. However, there is a need to exercise caution in applying MLR models for projecting changes in future flows, especially for regulated basins.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".