Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A reliable flood frequency analysis (FFA) requires selection of an appropriate statistical distribution to model historic streamflow data and, where streamflow data are not available (ungauged sites), a regression-based regional flood frequency analysis (RFFA) often correlates well with downstream channel discharge to drainage area relations. However, the predictive strength of the accepted RFFA relies on an assumption of homogeneous watershed conditions. For glacially conditioned fluvial systems, inherited glacial landforms, sediments, and variable land use can alter flow paths and modify flow regimes. This study compares a multi-variate RFFA that considers 28 explanatory variables to characterize variable watershed conditions (i.e., surficial geology, climate, topography, and land use) to an accepted power-law relationship between discharge and drainage area. Archived gauge data from southern Ontario, Canada are used to test these ideas. Mathematical goodness-of-fit criteria best estimate flood discharge for a broad range of flood recurrence intervals, i.e., 1.25, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years. The LN, EV1, LP3, and GEV distributions are found most appropriate in 42.5 %, 31.9 %, 21.7 %, and 3.9 % of cases, respectively, suggesting that systematic model selection criterion is required for FFA in heterogeneous landscapes. Multi-variate regression of estimated flood quantiles with backward elimination of explanatory variables using principal component and discriminant analyses reveal that precipitation provides a greater predictive relationship for more frequent flood events, whereas surficial geology demonstrates more predictive ability for high magnitude, less frequent flood events. In this study, all seven flood quantiles identify a statistically significant two-predictor model that incorporates upstream drainage area and the percentage of naturalized landscape with 5 % improvement in predictive power over the commonly used single-variable drainage area model (p < 2.2e−16). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) further supports the two-predictor model indicating a decrease in the sum of squares of residuals and an F statistic (p < 0.001) that demonstrates very strong evidence in favour of the two-predictor model (i.e., drainage area and land use) when estimating flood discharge in this low-relief landscape with pronounced glacial legacy effects and heterogenous land use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.145 | 0.116 |
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".