MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908236810 · doi:10.3390/w11010063

Flooding Related Consequences of Climate Change on Canadian Cities and Flow Regulation Infrastructure

2019· article· en· W2908236810 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ayushi Gaur, Abhishek Gaur, Dai Yamazaki, Slobodan P. Simonović

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlooding (psychology)Flood mythClimate changeGeographyEnvironmental scienceNatural hazardHazardClimatologyMeteorologyEcologyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study discusses the flooding related consequences of climate change on most populous Canadian cities and flow regulation infrastructure (FRI). The discussion is based on the aggregated results of historical and projected future flooding frequencies and flood timing as generated by Canada-wide hydrodynamic modelling in a previous study. Impact assessment on 100 most populous Canadian cities indicate that future flooding frequencies in some of the most populous cities such as Toronto and Montreal can be expected to increase from 100 (250) years to 15 (22) years by the end of the 21st century making these cities highest at risk to projected changes in flooding frequencies as a consequence of climate change. Overall 40–60% of the analyzed cities are found to be associated with future increases in flooding frequencies and associated increases in flood hazard and flood risk. The flooding related impacts of climate change on 1072 FRIs located across Canada are assessed both in terms of projected changes in future flooding frequencies and changes in flood timings. Results suggest that 40–50% of the FRIs especially those located in southern Ontario, western coastal regions, and northern regions of Canada can be expected to experience future increases in flooding frequencies. FRIs located in many of these regions are also projected to experience future changes in flood timing underlining that operating rules for those FRIs may need to be reassessed to make them resilient to changing climate.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207