MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307614369 · doi:10.1002/hyp.10853

Ice‐jam flood risk assessment and mapping

2016· article· en· W2307614369 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlood mythEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Flooding (psychology)Flood risk assessment100-year floodReturn periodRisk assessmentHazard analysisFlood stageGeologyGeographyEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In northern regions, river ice‐ jam flooding can be more severe than open‐water flooding causing property and infrastructure damages, loss of human life and adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Very little has been performed to assess the risk induced by ice‐related floods because most risk assessments are limited to open‐water floods. The specific objective of this study is to incorporate ice‐jam numerical modelling tools (e.g. RIVICE, Monte‐Carlo simulation) into flood hazard and risk assessment along the Peace River at the Town of Peace River (TPR) in Alberta, Canada. Adequate historical data for different ice‐jam and open‐water flooding events were available for this study site and were useful in developing ice‐affected stage‐frequency curves. These curves were then applied to calibrate a numerical hydraulic model, which simulated different ice jams and flood scenarios along the Peace River at the TPR. A Monte‐Carlo analysis was then carried out to acquire an ensemble of water level profiles to determine the 1 : 100‐year and 1 : 200‐year annual exceedance probability flood stages for the TPR. These flood stages were then used to map flood hazard and vulnerability of the TPR. Finally, the flood risk for a 200‐year return period was calculated to be an average of $32/m 2 /a ($/m 2 /a corresponds to a unit of annual expected damages or risk). Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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