MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093036559 · doi:10.3390/w12102891

Impact of Climate Change on the Frequency of Dynamic Breakup Events and on the Risk of Ice-Jam Floods in Quebec, Canada

2020· article· en· W3093036559 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benoit Turcotte, Brian Morse, Gabriel Pelchat

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakupFlood mythClimate changeFlooding (psychology)Environmental scienceClimatologyHydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cold regions, every year, river-ice jams generate sudden, surprising, intense flooding that challenges the capacity of public security services. This type of flood is commonly unpredictable and often appears chaotic because its occurrence depends on multiple, interacting weather, hydrological, ice and morphological parameters. This paper presents the findings of a research project assessing how climate change impacts dynamic river-ice breakup and associated floods along seven rivers of the province of Quebec, Canada. A combination of empirical river-ice breakup models, state-of-the-art hydrological simulations and standardized climate projections was used to estimate the historical (1972–2000) and future (2042–2070) frequencies of dynamic breakup events. Ice jam flood damage reimbursement data were used to predict changes to financial risk associated with dynamic breakup events. Results show that, overall, ice-jam floods will generate more damage in the future, which justifies watershed-based flood adaptation plans that take into account cold regions hydrological processes. The success of the methodology also sets the table for a comparable project that would include more rivers from different regions of Northeastern America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207