Current status and advancement suggestions of ice-jam flood hazard and risk assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many northern rivers, ice-jam flooding can be more severe than open-water flooding, leading to human casualties, damages to property and infrastructure, and adverse impacts on the ecology. Consequently, ice jam related flooding is a major concern for many riverside communities, water authorities, insurance companies, and government agencies. Ice-jam flood hazard delineation and risk analysis are important measures for flood preparation, mitigation, and management strategies. Although methodologies and techniques for open-water flood hazard and risk assessment are well established, methodologies and techniques for ice-jam flood hazard and risk assessment are often unavailable or less developed. In addition to this, a considerable number of studies have been conducted in the context of flood management, but a very limited number of studies have been carried out in real-time flood risk analysis during operational flood forecasting. In this paper, the current status of ice-jam flood hazard delineation and risk analysis is discussed. A framework for real-time risk analysis for operational flood forecasting is also discussed. Finally, current limitations and future requirements for developing effective ice-jam flood hazard delineation and risk analysis methodologies are provided.
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".