MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475748584 · doi:10.1175/bams-d-15-00247.1

The FLASH Project: Improving the Tools for Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction across the United States

2016· article· en· W2475748584 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonathan J. Gourley, Zachary L. Flamig, Humberto Vergara, Pierre‐Emmanuel Kirstetter, Robert A. Clark, Elizabeth M. Argyle, Ami Arthur, Steven M. Martinaitis, Galateia Terti, Jessica M. Erlingis, Yang Hong, Kenneth W. Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaDisaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013University of Oklahoma
KeywordsFlash floodHydrometeorologyEnvironmental scienceFlash (photography)MeteorologyFlood mythHydrographFlood forecastingComputer sciencePrecipitationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study introduces the Flooded Locations and Simulated Hydrographs (FLASH) project. FLASH is the first system to generate a suite of hydrometeorological products at flash flood scale in real-time across the conterminous United States, including rainfall average recurrence intervals, ratios of rainfall to flash flood guidance, and distributed hydrologic model–based discharge forecasts. The key aspects of the system are 1) precipitation forcing from the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL)’s Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor (MRMS) system, 2) a computationally efficient distributed hydrologic modeling framework with sufficient representation of physical processes for flood prediction, 3) capability to provide forecasts at all grid points covered by radars without the requirement of model calibration, and 4) an open-access development platform, product display, and verification system for testing new ideas in a real-time demonstration environment and for fostering collaborations. This study assesses the FLASH system’s ability to accurately simulate unit peak discharges over a 7-yr period in 1,643 unregulated gauged basins. The evaluation indicates that FLASH’s unit peak discharges had a linear and rank correlation of 0.64 and 0.79, respectively, and that the timing of the peak discharges has errors less than 2 h. The critical success index with FLASH was 0.38 for flood events that exceeded action stage. FLASH performance is demonstrated and evaluated for case studies, including the 2013 deadly flash flood case in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and the 2015 event in Houston, Texas—both of which occurred on Memorial Day weekends.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations210
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the American Meteorological SocietySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207