MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167144390 · doi:10.1029/2021wr029595

Evaluation of the Drivers Responsible for Flooding in Africa

2021· article· en· W3167144390 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Tramblay, Gabriele Villarini, El Mahdi El Khalki, Gaby J. Gründemann, Denis Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersEuropean Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological SatellitesFACE Foundation
KeywordsFlood mythEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationFlooding (psychology)Flood forecastingHydrology (agriculture)Water content100-year floodClimatologyGeographyMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Africa is severely affected by floods, with an increasing vulnerability to these events in the most recent decades. Our improved preparation against and response to this hazard would benefit from an enhanced understanding of the physical processes at play. Here, a database of 399 African stream gauges is used to analyze the seasonality of observed annual maximum flood, precipitation and soil moisture between 1981 and 2018. The database includes a total of 11,302 flood events, covering most African regions. The analysis is based on directional statistics to compare the annual maximum river flood with annual maximum rainfall and soil moisture. The results show that the annual maximum flood in most areas is more strongly linked to the annual peak of soil moisture than of annual maximum precipitation. In addition, the interannual variability of flood magnitudes is better explained by the variability of annual maximum soil moisture than by the variability in the annual maximum precipitation. These results have important implications for flood forecasting and the analysis of the long‐term evolution of these hydrological hazards in relation with their drivers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations87
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207