A Procedure for Estimating Drought Duration and Magnitude at the Uniform Cutoff Level of Streamflow: A Case of the Weekly Flows of Canadian Rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At times, hydrological drought is defined using Q90 or Q95 (90% or 95% flows equaling or exceeding) or even at higher levels, such as Q75 as the cutoff level regardless of their seasonal variation (i.e., truncation at the uniform flow level). In the past, the estimation of drought length and magnitude at the aforesaid uniform cutoff levels of flow has been a challenging issue. A procedure is presented to first estimate the drought magnitude (M), which then forms the basis for estimating the drought duration or length (L). The drought magnitude (M) and the length of the critical period (Lcr) are estimated using the concept of behavior analysis prevalent in the hydrologic design of reservoirs. This information is used for estimating the drought length (LT-e′, the estimated value of drought length for the return period of T weeks) involving a Markov chain model on the standardized weekly flow sequences. A weighted average of Lcr and LT-e′ (=0.60 Lcr + 0.40 LT-e′) results in the estimate of drought length, which is compatible to the observed counterpart. The performance of the procedure to estimate drought length was found to be satisfactory up to the truncation level of Q75, whereas the estimation of drought magnitude was rated as good.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".