Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flooding is an important natural process. It plays a vital role in the maintenance of floodplain and shoreline ecosystems. Yet, it also is a hazard, in that floods put human life and property at risk. Paradoxically, flooding is a hazard only because humans have chosen to occupy flood‐vulnerable areas, such as riverine floodplains and lake or coastal shorelines. Recent major floods in Canada are a reminder that vulnerability to floods remains high. Responses to the flooding “problem” have evolved in Canada from an emphasis on controlling “water out of place” through structural measures such as dams and dikes, to managing human behaviour using zoning to keep development away from hazardous areas. In Canada, the federal‐provincial Flood Damage Reduction Program, initiated in 1975, has been an important vehicle for delivering a consistent, national approach to floodplain management. However, as of early 1999, the federal government has allowed the program to wind down while it reconsiders its role in water management ‐ effectively leaving the field of flood damage reduction to the provinces. This creates both challenges and opportunities. The challenge will be to avoid a return to the spiral of increasing flood damages and disaster assistance payments that characterized the period up to 1975. At the same time, however, opportunities exist to take stock of floodplain management, and to evaluate alternative future directions, including a more integrated approach to flooding. Les inondations font partie d'un processus naturel important. En particulier, elles contribuent largement à entretenir les écosystèmes des plaines inondables et des zones riveraines. Pourtant, elles constituent aussi un risque dans la mesure où elles mettent en danger la vie des gens et les propriétés. Paradoxalement, les inondations ne sont un risque que parce que les être humains ont choisi d'occuper des zones susceptibles d‘être inondées, comme les plaines riveraines inondables, les rives des lacs et le littoral marin. Les inondations importantes qui se sont récemment produites au Canada nous ont rappelé notre grande vulnérabilitéà leur égard. Notre réaction à l'endroit du “problème” que représentent les inondations a d'ailleurs évolué. Au lieu de nous concentrer comme autrefois sur l'adoption de mesures structurelles comme des barrages et des digues pour empêcher l'eau de s’échapper librement, nous agissons maintenant sur le comportement humain en décourageant les installations dans les zones dangereuses. Au Canada, le programme fédéral‐provincial de réduction des dommages causés par les inondations, lancé en 1975, a beaucoup contribuéà l‘élaboration d'une approche nationale cohérente dans la gestion des plaines inondables. Cependant, au début de 1999, le gouvernement fédéral, qui repense son rôle dans la gestion des eaux, a autorisé l’élimination progressive du programme, laissant tout bonnement aux provinces la responsabilité de la réduction des dommages causés par les inondations. Ce nouvel état de choses soulève évidemment toutes sortes de difficultés, mais aussi des possibilités. Entre autres difficultés, il faudra éviter de retomber dans la spirale des paiements d'aide aux sinistrés et de compensation pour les dommages issus des inondations qui a caractérisé la période antérieure à 1975. Parallèlement, sur le plan des possibilités, il faudra prendre en main la gestion des plaines inondables et évaluer les différentes orientations possibles, y compris l'adoption d'une approche plus intégrée de lutte contre les inondations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".