Low flow characteristics of Ontario streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, analysis of low flows was conducted in 1990 by Cumming Cockburn Limited using observational records from over 340 gauging locations and a software package developed by Inland Waters Directorate (currently Water Survey of Canada) of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). As the software has become almost obsolete overtime due to tremendous changes in the underlying technology and roughly 35 years of additional data since the development of the report by Cumming Cockburn Limited, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) of Ontario desired to have the software redeveloped in a modern language, along with a user-friendly interface, and all technical reports to be updated. The specific deliverables of the overall project conceived by the MECP were: (1) an updated low flow frequency analysis (LFFA) software, (2) a report pertaining to LFFA of Ontario streams using longer and most recent data, (3) development of a framework for undertaking LFFA considering the effects of future climate change, and (4) a documented review of regional LFFA techniques, with a focus on ungauged locations. The National Research Council Canada (NRC) headed this effort through an inter-departmental agreement between the MECP and the NRC. This report pertains to item 2 above and therefore contains updated information on low flow analysis for Ontario streams based on longer observational records, where available, from the entire hydrometric network managed by ECCC across Ontario. Theoretical information on data screening procedures and distribution fitting methods was derived mainly from the report prepared by Cumming Cockburn Limited and key technical documents that were referred to at the time. Some additional insights from the published literature that have become available since then are also considered. In the reports by Cumming Cockburn Limited, the analyses were organized based on five regional partitions of Ontario. The spatial demarcation of these regions is no longer available with the MECP and therefore five administrative regions of Ontario are used in this report to organize results of low flow analyses and to satisfy project objectives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".