MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2284055250 · doi:10.12691/ajwr-4-1-1

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Impact of Climate Change on Lake Ontario Tributary

2016· article· en· W2284055250 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sadik Ahmed, Ioannis K. Tsanis

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican journal of water resources · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormEnvironmental scienceReturn periodClimate changeTributaryPrecipitationFlood mythClimate modelHydrology (agriculture)Winter stormFlooding (psychology)ClimatologyGeologyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate model projections indicate that the frequency and magnitude of hydrological extremes will increase in a future climate due to increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. Increase in precipitation depth will lead to higher peak flows, and will bring floods with higher inundation depths and larger extends. This study involves the climate change impact analysis of design storms, peak flows and flooding scenario for the Clearview Creek drainage area located in Southern Ontario, Canada. First, the storm depths for different return periods and durations were calculated from the observed rainfall data and the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) climate simulations. The storm depths were calculated by using the best fitted distribution among twenty seven distributions. The design storm depths calculated from the observed and climate model simulated data are used as input into an existing Visual OTTHYMO model of the study area for flow simulation. The simulated peak flows for 24hr Storm of different return periods are used as input in the HEC-RAS model for hydraulic analyses. Frequency analysis results show that the storm depths are predicted to increase significantly under future climate. Simulated flow results show an increase of peak flows ranging from about 26 % to 64% for 2yr and 100yr return periods at the outlet of the Creek. Finally, the analyses of flooding scenario revealed an average increase of water surface elevation and extents by 30 cm and 37.1 m, respectively, for a 100 year return period flood. It is also revealed that the variability of flow simulated by hydrologic model and flow area simulated by the hydraulic analyses tool are much higher than the variability of the storm depths under future climate condition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican journal of water resources→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→