MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1849454962 · doi:10.1029/2009wr008475

A new methodology for flood hazard assessment considering dike breaches

2010· article· en· W1849454962 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsManitoba Hydro
FundersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsDikeFlood mythProbabilistic logicGeologyHazard analysisPipingRandomnessHazardGeotechnical engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focuses on development and application of a new modeling approach for a comprehensive flood hazard assessment along protected river reaches considering dike failures. The proposed Inundation Hazard Assessment Model (IHAM) represents a hybrid probabilistic‐deterministic model. It comprises three models that are coupled in a dynamic way: (1) 1D unsteady hydrodynamic model for river channel and floodplain between dikes; (2) probabilistic dike breach model which determines possible dike breach locations, breach widths and breach outflow discharges; and (3) 2D raster‐based inundation model for the dike‐protected floodplain areas. Due to the unsteady nature of the 1D and 2D models and runtime coupling, the interdependence between the hydraulic loads on dikes at various locations along the reach is explicitly considered. This ensures a more realistic representation of the fluvial system dynamics under extreme conditions compared to the steady approaches. The probabilistic dike breach model describes dike failures due to three failure mechanisms: overtopping, piping and slope instability caused by seepage flow through the dike core (micro‐instability). The 2D storage cell model computes various flood intensity indicators such as water depth, flow velocity, and inundation duration. IHAM is embedded in a Monte Carlo simulation in order to account for the natural variability of the input hydrograph form and the randomness of dike failures. Besides binary (wet/dry) inundation patterns, IHAM generates new probabilistic flood hazard maps for each intensity indicator and the associated uncertainty bounds. Furthermore, the novel probabilistic dike hazard maps indicate the failure probability of dikes for each considered breach mechanism.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.279 · 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