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 OpenAlexafffundabout
Kris Holm, Matthias Jakob, Elisa Scordo

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.198
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE3S Web of ConferencesSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207