Estimation of instantaneous peak flows in Canadian rivers: an evaluation of conventional, nonlinear regression, and machine learning methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instantaneous peak flows (IPFs) are often required to derive design values for sizing various hydraulic structures, such as culverts, bridges, and small dams/levees, in addition to informing several water resources management-related activities. Compared to mean daily flows (MDFs), which represent averaged flows over a period of 24 h, information on IPFs is often missing or unavailable in instrumental records. In this study, conventional methods for estimating IPFs from MDFs are evaluated and new methods based on the nonlinear regression framework and machine learning architectures are proposed and evaluated using streamflow records from all Canadian hydrometric stations with natural and regulated flow regimes. Based on a robust model selection criterion, it was found that multiple methods are suitable for estimating IPFs from MDFs, which precludes the idea of a single universal method. The performance of machine learning-based methods was also found reasonable compared to conventional and regression-based methods. To build on the strengths of individual methods, the fusion modeling concept from the machine learning area was invoked to synthesize outputs of multiple methods. The study findings are expected to be useful to the climate change adaptation community, which currently heavily relies on MDFs simulated by hydrologic models.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".