Values and floodplain management: Case studies from the Red River Basin, Canada
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
Abstract Where floods are prevalent, decisions on how to mitigate vulnerability are made within a social-cultural context that includes values (and related customs, norms, beliefs, technology) of local people, which have evolved through interactions with the physical environment. Consequently, the success of floodplain management and flood mitigation activities is determined, at least in part, by the nature of values that impact the decision-making process. This paper explores this contention by considering the community values context surrounding flood risk management in two small Canadian communities in the Red River Basin. Using a qualitative methodology that includes semi-structured interviews with residents, community values are identified and accounted for in the context of flood vulnerability. Values discussions are organized around seven broad categories: community identity and community attributes; community economic development; technical and nonstructural approaches; civic engagement; flood legacy; personal rights and liberties; and shared values. Challenges posed by key identified values and their policy implications are considered. Some values are found to act as constraints if sustainable floodplain management practices are to be realized.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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