MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015828555 · doi:10.1080/1573062x.2012.758293

A flood risk assessment to municipal infrastructure due to changing climate part I: methodology

2013· article· en· W2015828555 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Water Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsFlood mythFlooding (psychology)Climate changeDamagesIndex (typography)Risk assessmentEnvironmental planningWork (physics)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessGeographyComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical sciencePsychologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractExtreme rainfall events that are occurring more frequently as an effect of climate change and variability are causing increasing damages to municipal infrastructure. A methodology is developed to quantify the risk to municipal infrastructure from climate change-related flooding. The risk is measured using a combination of flow/frequency, stage/damage and damage/frequency curves. The measure of risk is termed the Risk Index and calculated for each infrastructure element within a municipality. The risk is aggregated and summed by spatial unit and presented in the form of risk tables and maps. The risk index takes into account both quantitative and qualitative information obtained from research and interviews with technical experts. The results from the application of the methodology to a municipality will lead to better policy and informed decision making.Keywords:: flood risk assessmentfloodplain managementspatial riskclimate changerisk mitigation AcknowledgementsThis work was made possible by financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) and by the City of London. The authors would also like to thank our colleagues Hyung-Il Eum and Dragan Sredojevic whose work provided the input to this research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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