Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood events in the Massawippi drainage basin of southern Quebec are a common phenomenon, usually occurring in the spring months. They are often relatively benign events causing low levels of inconvenience to the local populace, however on occasion floods can bring large-scale damage and disruption. Two of the largest floods on record for this basin occurred in April 1982 and April 1994. This study examines the meteorological and hydrological conditions present during both months with the goal of identifying any comparable or contrasting features of the flood events. The Massawippi drainage basin is one of the largest sub-basins in the Saint-Francois River basin, covering approximately 1670 km2. Its relatively large surface area, high frequency of streams, gentle slope and near-circular basin shape combine to create the geomorphological conditions suitable for frequent flood events. Abundant winter snowfalls, large spring precipitation events and river ice jams provide the necessary hydrometeorological conditions. In April 1982 a sudden, intense rainstorm created a flash flood type of situation. Rapidly rising river levels caused some of the worst infrastructure damages ever reported for the Massawippi basin. In contrast the April 1994 flood, which reached comparable river discharges, was created through a gradual rise of the basins rivers by a series of rainstorms and the melting of a deep snowcover over a two-week period. Thus, these two events, although comparable in magnitude, contrasted significantly in their character. The 1982 event, because of the sudden development of its peak flow, allowed little time for flood preparations and thus caused much more damage than the 1994 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".