Changing Weather Patterns, Uncertainty and Infrastructure Risks: Emerging Adaptation Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the climate changes, it is likely that risks for infrastructure failure will increase worldwide due to shifting weather patterns and extreme weather conditions becoming more variable and regionally more intense. Existing studies indicate that small increases in weather and climate extremes have the potential to bring large increases in damages to existing infrastructure. Almost all of today's infrastructure has been designed using climatic design values calculated from historical climate data on the assumption that past extremes will represent future conditions. Changes in climate will require changes to these climatic design values, as well as larger societal changes. Uncertainties in the climate change models and in the projections on the magnitudes and directions of future changes limit abilities to design infrastructure for future conditions. Until these uncertainties in the climate change projections are reduced, it will become critically important that climatic design values be calculated as accurately as possible and that values are regularly updated to reflect the changing climate. Since uncertainty is accepted as a part of construction codes and standards, it should be possible to deal with the growing uncertainty of future climate design values through measures such as increasing safety factors, forensic analyses of extreme events and use of climate trends and climate model projections based on surrogate climate variables.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".