MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559761937 · doi:10.5194/nhess-17-1033-2017

River predisposition to ice jams: a simplified geospatial model

2017· article· en· W2559761937 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stéphane Munck, Yves Gauthier, Monique Bernier, Karem Chokmani, Serge Légaré

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural hazards and earth system sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSinuosityGeospatial analysisChannel (broadcasting)BreakupGeologyDigital elevation modelJAMSHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyGeographyGeomorphologyRemote sensingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Floods resulting from river ice jams pose a great risk to many riverside municipalities in Canada. The location of an ice jam is mainly influenced by channel morphology. The goal of this work was therefore to develop a simplified geospatial model to estimate the predisposition of a river channel to ice jams. Rather than predicting the timing of river ice breakup, the main question here was to predict where the broken ice is susceptible to jam based on the river's geomorphological characteristics. Thus, six parameters referred to potential causes for ice jams in the literature were initially selected: presence of an island, narrowing of the channel, high sinuosity, presence of a bridge, confluence of rivers, and slope break. A GIS-based tool was used to generate the aforementioned factors over regular-spaced segments along the entire channel using available geospatial data. An ice jam predisposition index (IJPI) was calculated by combining the weighted optimal factors. Three Canadian rivers (province of Québec) were chosen as test sites. The resulting maps were assessed from historical observations and local knowledge. Results show that 77 % of the observed ice jam sites on record occurred in river sections that the model considered as having high or medium predisposition. This leaves 23 % of false negative errors (missed occurrence). Between 7 and 11 % of the highly predisposed river sections did not have an ice jam on record (false-positive cases). Results, limitations, and potential improvements are discussed.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural hazards and earth system sciencesSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207