MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2537650096 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20160701009

An inventory and risk-based prioritization of Steep Creek Fans in Alberta, Canada

2016· article· en· W2537650096 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

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
FundersAlberta Environment and Parks
KeywordsAlluvial fanFlooding (psychology)Flood mythDamagesHazardPrioritizationWatershedNatural hazardDebris flowEnvironmental scienceDebrisDowntownHydrology (agriculture)GeographyWater resource managementEngineeringArchaeologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In June 2013, heavy rainfall caused flooding on most rivers in the province of Alberta, Canada, producing one of Canada’s most expensive natural disasters with about $6 billion (CDN) in damage. Flooding inundated several municipalities including downtown Calgary, the fourth-largest city in Canada. Debris flows and debris floods caused extensive highway closures and damages to development on alluvial fans. Following these events, the Government of Alberta requested an inventory of all fans intersecting municipal development, major roads and highways in Alberta. Such fans may be subject to debris flow, debris flood (mud flows), and/or flood hazards. The study area spans the entirety of the Alberta Rocky Mountains, approximately 51,000 km2 (7% of Alberta). We characterize 710 fans in terms of hazard level and presence and types of elements at risk. We statistically analyse watershed attributes to predict the dominant fan hydrogeomorphic process types. All fans under provincial jurisdiction are assigned priority ratings based on hazard levels and the presence and value of elements at risk. The prioritization is risk-based as it considers both hazards and potential consequences. Of the fans prioritized, 13% intersected parcels containing land and residential developments with an assessed value of $2.4 billion (CDN), and the remainder were crossed by roads, pipelines or transmission lines. We present the study results on an interactive, searchable web application that can support ongoing hazard and risk assessments and risk reduction planning.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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