Present and Future Flood Hazard in the Lower Columbia River Estuary: Changing Flood Hazards in the Portland‐Vancouver Metropolitan Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the next century, model projections suggest that river run‑off in the Pacific Northwest will increase during the winter season and that sea‐level rise (SLR) may exceed a meter. To investigate the resulting changes in flood hazard, we numerically model the February 1996 and January 1923 floods (the largest and third‐largest Willamette River floods since 1900) under present and potential future run‐off and sea level scenarios. First, we reproduce the actual February 1996 flood to within a root‐mean‐square error of 0.05 m ( N = 7) for peak water levels. Next, we run scenarios in which three SLR scenarios (0, 0.6, and 1.5 m) are combined with two river run‐off scenarios (0% and 10% run‐off increase). Then the slightly larger 1923 flood scenario is run, but with modern (higher than historical) Columbia River flow. The results indicate that a 10% increase in river run‐off increased the1996 flood magnitude by 0.78 m, while 1923 flow increases flood magnitude by 0.82 m. Overall, the type and magnitude of future flood hazards vary with reach. The Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan area is most sensitive to changes in run‐off, with a smaller change of ~0.2–0.26 m per meter of SLR. By contrast, coastal regions are quite sensitive to amplified sea level and exhibit nonlinear responses based on changes to river slope and tides. Between the fluvial region and the estuary, a region of compound flood hazard exists that is sensitive to changes in river discharge, sea level, tides, and storm surge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".