Mechanisms of spring freshet generation in southern Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seasonal forecasting of spring floods in snow-covered basins is challenging due to the ambiguity in the driving processes, uncertain estimations of antecedent catchment conditions and the choice of predictor variables. In this study we attempt to improve the prediction of spring flow peaks in southern Quebec, Canada, by studying the preconditioning mechanisms of runoff generation and their impact on inter-annual variations in the timing and magnitude of spring peak flow. Historical observations and simulated data from a hydrological and snowmelt model were used to study the antecedent conditions that control flood characteristics in twelve snow-dominated catchments. Maximum snow accumulation (peak SWE), snowmelt and rainfall volume, snowmelt and rainfall intensity, and soil moisture were estimated during the pre-flood period. Stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify the most relevant predictors and assess their relative contribution to the interannual variability of flood characteristics. Results show that interannual variations in spring peak flow are controlled differently between basins. Overall, interannual variations in peak flow were mainly governed, in order of importance, by snowmelt intensity, rainfall intensity, snowmelt volume, rainfall volume, peak SWE, and soil moisture. Variations in the timing of peak flow were controlled in most basins by rainfall volume and rainfall and snowmelt intensity. In the northernmost, snow-dominated basins, pre-flood rainfall amount and intensity mostly controlled peak flow variability, whereas in the southern, rainier basins snowpack conditions and melt dynamics controlled this variability. Snowpack interannual variations were found to be less important than variations in rainfall in forested basins, where snowmelt is more gradual. Conversely, peak flow was more sensitive to snowpack conditions in agricultural basins where snowmelt occurs faster. These results highlight the impact of land cover and use on spring flood generation mechanism, and the limited predictability potential of spring floods using simple methods and antecedent hydrological factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".