Flood Frequency Analysis at Ungauged Sites Based on Regionally Estimated Streamflows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimation of flood events at ungauged sites is often performed through regional flood frequency analysis (RFFA). RFFA uses the available information at gauged sites to estimate the desired design events at the ungauged site. These regional methods are based on a prior aggregation of the hydrological information at the gauged sites, which implies loss of information. In the present study, a different approach or path for conducting RFFA is presented. First, the daily streamflow series at the ungauged site is regionally estimated from daily information at the gauged sites through a regional flow duration curve approach. Then, a local flood frequency analysis is performed on the extracted maximum peak flow series. The proposed approach, referred to as regional streamflow-based frequency analysis (RSBFA), is applied to a case study in the province of Quebec, Canada. Results indicate that the performance of the RSBFA approach is comparable to traditional methods. However, the proposed method has the advantages of being simple, flexible, and of providing the whole daily streamflow series at the ungauged site, which allows the direct estimation of a large number of other flow characteristics, such as low-flow features. The RSBFA approach also avoids performing a complete at-site flood frequency analysis at each gauged site. The fact that all the regional information is included in the regionally estimated daily streamflow series implies a number of benefits: annual or seasonal, absolute or specific, stationary or nonstationary, and univariate or multivariate flood quantiles corresponding to any return period may then be obtained through the estimated series without reconducting a regional analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".