MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941631733 · doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12750

A Rapid Response Survey to Characterize the Impacts of the 2017 High Water Event on Lake Ontario

2019· article· en· W2941631733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott Steinschneider, Alex Styler, Richard C. Stedman, Mary Austerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNew York Sea Grant, State University of New YorkNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsShoreFlood mythFlooding (psychology)ErosionHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGeological surveyPhysical geographyGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the spring and summer of 2017, communities along the Lake Ontario shoreline suffered from the worst flood event on record. In late May, daily water levels reached their highest point in over 100 years, and flooding continued throughout much of the summer as lake levels slowly declined, with inundation and erosion significantly impacting shoreline homes and businesses. In this work, we present results from a rapid response online survey of property owners along the New York Lake Ontario shoreline to quantify the perceived flood impacts of the 2017 extended high water event. The survey focused on the degree and spatial distribution of inundation and erosion; the duration and drivers of inundation; the associated damages to different property features, with an emphasis on shoreline protection; and the degree of disruption to business and other activities and services. Photographic documentation of inundation extent and property damage also was provided by survey respondents. We demonstrate the potential utility of this dataset by characterizing key features of inundation and erosion impacts across the shoreline, and by using classification and regression trees to explore the predictability of inundation and erosion based on property characteristics. This work is part of a larger effort to develop models of inundation and erosion that can support flood impact assessments across the shoreline and help communities better prepare for future extended high water events.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207