MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388534331 · doi:10.5194/hess-27-3977-2023

Modelling flood frequency and magnitude in a glacially conditioned, heterogeneous landscape: testing the importance of land cover and land use

2023· article· en· W4388534331 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pamela E. Tetford, Joseph R. Desloges

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)StreamflowEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyLand coverWatershedLand useGeologyDrainage basinGeographyEcologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A reliable flood frequency analysis (FFA) requires selection of an appropriate statistical distribution to model historical 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 multivariate 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 log-normal, Gumbel, log-Pearson type III, and generalized extreme value distributions are found most appropriate in 42.5 %, 31.9 %, 21.7 %, and 3.9 % of cases, respectively, suggesting that systematic model selection criteria are required for FFA in heterogeneous landscapes. Multivariate 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<2.2×10-16). Leave-one-out model testing and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) further support the parsimonious two-predictor model when estimating flood discharge in this low-relief landscape with pronounced glacial legacy effects and heterogeneous 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207