2 °C vs. High Warming: Transitions to Flood-Generating Mechanisms across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluvial flooding in Canada is often snowmelt-driven, thus occurs mostly in spring, and has caused billions of dollars in damage in the past decade alone. In a warmer climate, increasing rainfall and changing snowmelt rates could lead to significant shifts in flood-generating mechanisms. Here, projected changes to flood-generating mechanisms in terms of the relative contribution of snowmelt and rainfall are assessed across Canada, based on an ensemble of transient climate change simulations performed using a state-of-the-art regional climate model. Changes to flood-generating mechanisms are assessed for both a late 21st century, high warming (i.e., Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) scenario, and in a 2 °C global warming context. Under 2 °C of global warming, the relative contribution of snowmelt and rainfall to streamflow peaks is projected to remain close to that of the current climate, despite slightly increased rainfall contribution. In contrast, a high warming scenario leads to widespread increases in rainfall contribution and the emergence of hotspots of change in currently snowmelt-dominated regions across Canada. In addition, several regions in southern Canada would be projected to become rainfall dominated. These contrasting projections highlight the importance of climate change mitigation, as remaining below the 2 °C global warming threshold can avoid large changes over most regions, implying a low likelihood that expensive flood adaptation measures would be necessary.
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) | 0.003 | 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".