MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1917589669 · doi:10.5194/piahs-371-83-2015

Frequency of floods in a changing climate: a case study from the Red River in Manitoba, Canada

2015· article· en· W1917589669 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alaba Boluwade, P. F. Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationCoupled model intercomparison projectClimate changeSnowClimatologyFlood mythDrainage basinFlooding (psychology)Spring (device)Climate modelRange (aeronautics)StreamflowHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Spring flooding in the Red River basin is a recurrent issue in the Province of Manitoba, Canada. There have been a number of flood events in recent years and climate change has been suggested as a potential cause. This paper employs a relatively simple model for predicting changes in the frequency distribution of annual spring peak discharge of the Red River as a response to increased GHG concentrations. A regression model is used to predict spring peak flow from antecedent precipitation in the previous fall, winter snow accumulation, and spring precipitation. Data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project – Phase 5 (CMIP5) are used to estimate changes in the predictor variables and this information is then employed to derive flood distributions for future climate conditions. Most climate models predict increased precipitation during winter months but this trend is partly offset by a shorter snow accumulation period and higher winter evaporation rates. The means and medians of an ensemble of 16 climate models do not suggest a particular trend toward more or less frequent floods of the Red River. However, the ensemble range is relatively large, highlighting the difficulties involved in estimating changes in extreme events.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Association of Hydrological SciencesSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207