Development of a life safety model to estimate the risk posed to people by dam failures and floods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dam owners face important decisions about the ways in which finite resources should be allocated to ensure the continuing safe operation of ageing dams. Dam safety risk assessments depend on credible estimates of loss of life for hypothetical failure events to aid in quantifying risk and making decisions concerning how structures are maintained. This paper briefly describes the development of a model, called the ‘life safety model’, to provide a physics-based, dynamic model to estimate loss of life and evacuation times that can result from extreme flood events. The life safety model has an agent-based simulator that enables the model to represent a myriad of probable scenarios, which could result from a flood event. Unknown variables such as the effectiveness of warning, road capacity and time-varying population density can be tested in a range of scenarios. The life safety model uses results of flood water depth and velocity from two-dimensional hydraulic models such as Telemac 2D over the course of the event, to represent the flood hazard. Unlike many other models and methods of this kind the life safety model includes a dynamic interaction between the receptors and the flood hazard. The paper describes the application of the model to the Malapasset dam disaster that occurred in 1959 in the South of France. The application of the life safety model to this disaster demonstrated that the model was capable of making accurate estimates of loss of life from an actual flood event.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it