La place de l'hydrogéomorphologie dans les études d'inondation en France méditerranéenne / The contribution of hydrogeomorphology in flood hazard assessment: a review of the situation in southern France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The hydrogeomorphological method for delimiting flood risk zones in France was developed some twenty years ago. It is based on a simple principle: the outer limits of a stream! s flood plain materialize the outer envelope of past floods. These limits are determined with the use of aerial photographs and field surveys of micro-topography, as well as analyses of deposit granulometry and colour. Indications of present or past land use (fields, location and distribution of archeological sites, houses and farm buildings, roads) are also useful. This field- based method long remained ignored but being reliable, easy to use and inexpensive, it has now been incorporated into the package of methods recommended by French risk prevention plans (PPR). It therefore complements more widespread approaches such as the costly hydrological-hydraulic method. The many recent catastrophes which have occurred over the past twelve years in the Mediterranean regions of southern France, in Nîmes (1988) and in the Aude département (1999) demonstrated both the inadequacy of the hydrological- hydraulic method and the reliability of the hydrogeomorphological method. The hydrogeomorphological method can, however, be improved by setting observations for the present period against information on the more ancient Holocene evolution of flood channels. Furthermore, its intrinsic limits, which make it unable to provide a precise determination of the water depths and flow rates used in PPRs, emphasize the need for developing a hybrid method that is as effective and inexpensive as possible. Such improvements are well under way.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".