MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018487610 · doi:10.1139/l01-010

Design flood estimates in mountain streams the need for a geomorphic approach

2001· article· en· W2018487610 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthias Jakob, P. Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTREAMSFlood mythReturn periodHydrology (agriculture)WatershedLandslideDebrisStreamflowEnvironmental scienceDebris flowExtrapolation100-year floodGeologySnowmeltSnowGeomorphologyDrainage basinGeographyGeotechnical engineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimates of design flood frequencies are routinely required for engineering purposes on ungauged streams and streams with a limited period of streamflow record. In these cases, the design flood is determined either by rainfall frequency–duration analysis, regional analysis of streamflow data, or by extrapolation of a short record from a gauged stream. Although these types of analyses are valuable in a first approximation of peak discharges for different return periods, there is increasing evidence that geomorphic processes such as debris flows, landslide dam failures, glacial outburst floods, and even snow avalanches in the watershed can significantly exceed these estimates. This paper highlights the problem of a purely hydrologic approach for design flood estimates using several case studies, and suggests procedures to routinely include geomorphic processes in standard flood frequency studies.Key words: debris flows, debris floods, landslide dams, flood hazards, outburst floods, frequency analysis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations44
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207