Use of Mixed Methods in the Science of Hydrological Extremes: What Are Their Contributions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in hydrological sciences is constantly evolving to provide adequate answers to address various water-related issues. Methodological approaches inspired by mathematical and physical sciences have shaped hydrological sciences from its inceptions to the present day. Nowadays, as a better understanding of the social consequences of extreme meteorological events and of the population’s ability to adapt to these becomes increasingly necessary, hydrological sciences have begun to integrate knowledge from social sciences. Such knowledge allows for the study of complex social-ecological realities surrounding hydrological phenomena, such as citizens’ perception of water resources, as well as individual and collective behaviors related to water management. Using a mixed methods approach to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches has thus become necessary to understand the complexity of hydrological phenomena and propose adequate solutions for their management. In this paper, we detail how mixed methods can be used to research flood hydrology and low-flow conditions, as well as in the management of these hydrological extremes, through the analysis of case studies. We frame our analysis within the three paradigms (positivism, post-positivism, and constructivism) and four research designs (triangulation, complementary, explanatory, and exploratory) that guide research in hydrology. We show that mixed methods can notably contribute to the densification of data on extreme flood events to help reduce forecasting uncertainties, to the production of knowledge on low-flow hydrological states that are insufficiently documented, and to improving participatory decision making in water management and in handling extreme hydrological events.
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 | 0.232 | 0.324 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".