MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553261512 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.c408

Assessing the Impact of Variations in Hydrologic, Hydraulic and Hydrometeorological Controls on Inundation in Urban Areas

2016· article· en· W2553261512 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Behzad Nazari, Dong‐Jun Seo, Ranjan S. Muttiah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHydrometeorologyFlooding (psychology)Environmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementGeographyMeteorologyGeologyPrecipitationGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a great need for timely prediction of the extent and depth of flooding and related hazards in highly populated urban areas such as the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex (DFW).The hydrologic, hydraulic and hydrometeorological processes involved and the large number of factors that control them are complex, interrelated and generally scale dependent, which makes real time prediction of flood inundation in urban areas particularly challenging.In addition, a large number of human created structures such as channels, pipes, culverts, buildings, parking lots and manholes add complexity.With continuing urbanization and climate change, it is critical that the dynamics of urban flooding be better understood to improve prediction and to mitigate water related hazards under changing conditions.In this work, we assess how different factors may impact urban flood inundation using the 1D-2D PCSWMM model through a series of controlled simulation experiments.The main study area is the 3.3 km 2 Forest Park-Berry catchment in Fort Worth in North Central Texas, which has a high density of underground storm drainage.Specifically, we assess the impact of variations in precipitation and impervious cover on simulated inundation maps.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207