Estimation of Reservoir Volumes at Drafts of 40% - 90%: Drought Magnitude Method Applied on Monthly River Flows from Canadian Prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The draft ratios for sizing the reservoirs can vary within a wide range (40% - 90% of the mean annual flow, MAF), depending upon the demands for water by various users, and environmental and ecological considerations. The reservoir volumes based on the drought magnitude (DM) method were assessed at aforesaid draft ratios using monthly-standardized hydrological index (SHI) sequences of 10 Canadian rivers located in the Canadian prairies and northwestern Ontario. These rivers are typified by a high level of persistence lag-1 autocorrelation, ρ1m ≥ 0.50 and up to 0.94) and coefficient of variation (cvo) in the range of 0.42 to 1.48. The moving average (MA) smoothing of monthly SHI sequences formed the basis of the DM method for estimating reservoir volumes. The truncation or cutoff level in the SHI sequences was found as SHIx [=(α - 1)μo/σo], [(α - 1)μo/σmax], or [(α - 1)μo/σav], where α (=0.40 to 0.90) is the draft ratio i.e. proportion of the MAF, μo and σo are the overall mean and standard deviation of the monthly flows, σmax is the maximum value of standard deviations and σav the average of 12 monthly values. The failure probability levels (PF) were fixed at 5%, 2.5% and 0% (corresponding reliability of 95%, 97.5% and 100%). The study revealed that the coefficient of variation is the most important parameter that influences the reservoir size while the role of lag-1 autocorrelation (ρ1m) appears more pronounced at high draft ratios, α such as 0.90, 0.80 and 0.70 in increasing the reservoir size. The DM based method can be regarded as an alternative to Behavior analysis for sizing reservoirs at the desired probability of failure or reliability level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".