Assessing the influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation on discharge variability in western North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood frequency analysis assumes that annual peak flood events occur independently of each other, regardless of previous flood events (the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) assumption); however, annual peak flood records do not necessarily appear to conform to these assumptions. We tested the i.i.d assumption by analyzing the effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on 250 naturally flowing annual peak flood records across the entire western North American margin. Using permutation tests on quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots, we found that the PDO has a greater impact on the magnitude of annual peak floods than the AMO. Twenty-six percent of the gauges have higher magnitude annual floods depending on the PDO phase (p < 0.1). Next, we examined the interacting effects of the PDO and AMO on the frequencies of lower and upper quartile annual peak floods, and found reinforcing, cancelling, and dominating effects. Lastly, we used permutation t-tests on the Julian dates of seasonal maximum and minimum streamflows to assess the impact of the PDO and AMO. We found that the PDO and AMO have substantial effects on the dates of winter maximum and summer minimum streamflow dates across the coastal margin. Since these two climate oscillations have significant effects on the magnitudes of annual peak floods, the i.i.d. assumption does not hold. Hence, we advocate for the need to re-assess baseline flood analysis in western North America to improve flood management strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".