Multihazard simulation for coastal flood mapping: Bathtub versus numerical modelling in an open estuary, Eastern Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastlines along the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf, Eastern Canada, are under increasing risk of flooding due to sea level rise and sea ice shrinking. Efficient and validated regional‐scale coastal flood mapping approaches that include storm surges and waves are hence required to better prepare for the increased hazard. This paper compares and validates two different flood mapping methods: numerical flood simulations using XBeach and bathtub mapping based on total water levels, forced with multihazard scenarios of compound wave and water level events. XBeach is validated with hydrodynamic measurements. Simulations of a historical storm event are performed and validated against observed flood data over a ~25 km long coastline using multiple fit metrics. XBeach and the bathtub method correctly predict flooded areas (66 and 78%, respectively), but the latter overpredicts the flood extent by 36%. XBeach is a slightly more robust flood mapping approach with a fit of 51% against 48% for the bathtub maps. Deeper floodwater by ~0.5 m is expected with the bathtub approach, and more buildings are vulnerable to a 100‐year flood level. For coastal management at regional‐scale, despite similar flood extents with both flood mapping approaches, results suggest that numerical simulation with XBeach outperforms bathtub flood mapping.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it