Non-stationary analysis of future floods using physical covariates and implications for dams across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-stationary flood frequency analysis (FFA) has gained much momentum in recent years. However, most of the applications have considered time as the sole covariate, which may not be fully adept given the varied evolution of flood predictors. Incorporating physical covariates representing dominant flood generating mechanisms can enable more precise flood risk assessments. This study applies non-stationary FFA with flood-relevant physical covariates to assess dam vulnerability across Canada, using transient climate change simulations from a regional climate model, one-way coupled to a routing model, for the current 1991–2020 and future 2070–2099 periods. From a set of 10 non-stationary models, considering maximum snow water equivalent, average annual temperature, spring-summer rainfall, fall-winter rainfall, and their combinations as plausible physical covariates, the preferred model for each grid cell is selected through a corrected form of the Akaike Information Criterion. The spatial patterns of physical covariates of the preferred models are, in general, found consistent with the flood generating mechanisms. Little support is found for the traditional stationary FFA approach compared to the non-stationary FFA with physical covariates. Application of the preferred model for the RCP8.5 scenario suggest that 67.5 % of dams, from a pre-identified set of medium and large dams, are located in vulnerable regions, far exceeding the stationary model estimates. The study provides useful insights, both for the development of non-stationary FFA models considering physical covariates and their application in the vulnerability assessment of critical water infrastructure in Canada, thereby contributing to the development of climate change adaptation strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".