MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290669751 · doi:10.1111/risa.13285

A CGE Framework for Modeling the Economics of Flooding and Recovery in a Major Urban Area

2019· article· en· W2290669751 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aaron Gertz, James Davies, Samantha L. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Analysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsFlood mythComputable general equilibriumFlooding (psychology)Stock (firearms)Climate changeEconomicsStormShock (circulatory)Environmental scienceGeographyNatural resource economicsMeteorologyMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastal cities around the world have experienced large costs from major flooding events in recent years. Climate change is predicted to bring an increased likelihood of flooding due to sea level rise and more frequent severe storms. In order to plan future development and adaptation, cities must know the magnitude of losses associated with these events, and how they can be reduced. Often losses are calculated from insurance claims or surveying flood victims. However, this largely neglects the loss due to the disruption of economic activity. We use a forward-looking dynamic computable general equilibrium model to study how a local economy responds to a flood, focusing on the subsequent recovery/reconstruction. Initial damage is modeled as a shock to the capital stock and recovery requires rebuilding that stock. We apply the model to Vancouver, British Columbia by considering a flood scenario causing total capital damage of $14.6 billion spread across five municipalities. GDP loss relative to a no-flood scenario is relatively long-lasting. It is 2.0% ($2.2 billion) in the first year after the flood, 1.7% ($1.9 billion) in the second year, and 1.2% ($1.4 billion) in the fifth year.

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)0.001
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk AnalysisSame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207