MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6910282987 · doi:10.4224/40003402

Toward a national database on flooding events caused by river ice

2024· report· en· W6910282987 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Notice bibliographique

RevueNPARC · 2024
Typereport
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensNational Research Council CanadaGovernment of Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFlooding (psychology)Hydrology (agriculture)Surface runoffFlood mythShoreArctic ice pack

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Flooding along river shorelines often results from ice-related phenomena, such as ice jams. Severe ice jams and associated floods can have major socioeconomic impacts, not only on people’s safety and property but also on the security of infrastructure, transportation, inland navigation, and energy generation. The significance of ice jams to flooding at the national level and beyond has not been adequately documented, and not enough is known about whether/how their frequency is responding to the changing climate. To address these requirements, there is a need for a database of flooding events induced by river ice and ice jam floods (IJF) in Canada, including relevant information, such as year and date, extent of floods, and damage costs. This report is to assess how to best approach the makeup of such a database. It begins with an overview of river ice and the factors leading to the formation of ice jams, defined as a stationary accumulation of fragmented ice or frazil that restricts flow. The large thickness and extreme roughness of the ice under- surface can cause very high water levels and overland flooding, even with moderate river discharges. A review was conducted as part of this study on existing methods to model river ice and anticipate the formation of ice jams. These models are of two types: those that capture the physics of the processes governing river ice development, and those that are data-driven i.e., they rely on statistical data. This review allows for an appreciation of the data that could be incorporated into a database. A review was also conducted on pre-existing databases – eleven such databases are described, each addressing various aspects of river ice from a different perspective: They are: the Canadian River Ice Database (CRID), the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) database, the Historique d'embâcles répertoriés from the Government of Quebec’s Ministère de la Sécurité Publique (MSP), the Canadian Ice Database (CID), the Historical Flood Events database from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and ECCC, the River Watch Program (RWP) in Alaska, the Global Lake and River Ice Phenology Database, Alberta River Basin’s database, the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo’s (RMWD) database, the Russian River Ice Thickness and Duration database, and the National Ice Jam Database. A description of each is provided, as well as an explanation of the data they enclose. Three other databases, not strictly relevant for river ice but of interest nonetheless, are briefly described: HydroSHEDS’ Global River Classification (GLORIC), European Union’s Copernicus database, and University of New Hampshire’s ArcticRIMS. Database design takes into account data entry, for which little information was found, and data access, typically via the Internet. In most cases, the data can be accessed by downloading data files or by navigating interactive maps and extracting data from that exploration. Based on the foregoing, a database is seen as having a dual ‘vocation’: a) to provide data that can help understand these phenomena – the target users have expertise in river ice hydraulics and hydrology; and b) To provide information that can help prepare against these phenomena – in this case, the target users are community stakeholders. A simplified sequence of steps is proposed for the development of a new database, drawing from the previously existing ones: deciding on who would be the end users, determining what their needs are, figuring out the data sources, orchestrating database design, its content and how it would be made accessible to the users, planning the resources required (technical, timelines, material), database delivery, and database maintenance. While the database would be centered primarily on IJFs in Canada, it could enclose data from elsewhere. The database should be seen as a communication vehicle of scientific relevance, as is the case for research papers. Finally, the larger the audience for this product (by envisaging a wide user base in database planning), the more interest it would spur from organizations that are concerned with IJFs. This would maximize opportunities to leverage funding sources for everyone’s benefit.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,635
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,725

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0130,020
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,098
Tête enseignante GPT0,348
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNPARC→Travaux en français237 207→