Homogeneity in Patterns of Climate Extremes Between Two Cities—A Potential for Flood Planning in Relation to Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information about potential scenarios and causes of floods is important for future planning. Historical weather data of Fredericton (New Brunswick) and Charlottetown (Prince Edward Island), the two coastal cities of Atlantic Canada, were analyzed using RClimDex, Mann–Kendall test, and Sen’s slope estimates for potential scenarios and causes of floods. Flood hazard analyses were conducted using GIS (Geographical Information System) and ArcSWAT software. The watersheds of Fredericton and Charlottetown were delineated from 25 × 25 m resolution DEMs (Digital Elevation Models) of the two cities followed by percent watershed area calculations for different elevation classes for flood generation. Over the past 100 years, there was a significant decreasing trend in the high intensity precipitation in Charlottetown supported by a significant decrease in the number of heavy precipitation days. However, maximum one-day precipitation and maximum five-day precipitation significantly increased in Charlottetown and Fredericton, respectively. Charlottetown received more annual precipitation than Fredericton. In the last 30 years, there was an event exceeding 50 mm precipitation (considered as a threshold for the return period of urban floods) in Charlottetown; Fredericton experienced such events for more than 1.5 times. For twelve times, these events occurred more than once in a year in Charlottetown as compared to fourteen times in Fredericton. Despite statistically proven similarities in the occurrence of extreme events in the two cities, the visualized flood hazards, and the mapping of watershed characteristics, no devastating floods were reported for Charlottetown. This does not necessarily mean that there had never been risks of flooding in Charlottetown. These findings may help policymakers for future developments.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".