MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methodology for Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on Large-Scale Flood Protection System

2003· article· en· W2091351952 on OpenAlexaffabout
Slobodan P. Simonović, Lanhai Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythClimate changeEnvironmental scienceFlood controlFlood risk assessmentPrecipitationFlood forecastingScale (ratio)StreamflowEnvironmental resource managementDrainage basinHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyEngineeringGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An original modeling framework for the assessment of climate variation and change impacts on the performance of a complex flood protection system has been developed for the city of Winnipeg in the Red River basin, Manitoba, Canada. The modeling framework allows for the evaluation of different climate change scenarios generated by the global climate models. Temperature and precipitation are used as the main factors affecting flood flow generation. The main contribution of the reported work is the use of a system dynamics modeling and simulation approach in the development of a system performance assessment model. The assessment-modeling framework is based on flood flows, capacity of flood control structures, and failure flow levels at different locations in the basin. The results of this study (shown only to illustrate the methodology) indicate that the capacity of the existing Red River flood protection system is sufficient to accommodate future climate variability and change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations103
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Resources Planning and ManagementSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207